Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00911, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV00911 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: May 4, 2023
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00911
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Tracie Love, et al. v. Jerome L. Dodson,
et al.
¿¿¿ ¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: None Set.
¿¿¿
MOTIONS:¿ (1) Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel
(2)
Court on its own motion to continue hearings on demurrer and motions to compel
discovery
¿
Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel is GRANTED.
(2)
The Court tentatively continues the May 26 hearing on Defendants’ Demurrer and
the May 10 hearings on two defense motions to compel initial discovery to June
9, 2023
I.
Background
On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs, Tracie Love and E.B.J.T.
Enterprise, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants, Jerome L.
Dodson, Asset Default Management, Inc., Lil’ Wave Financial, Incl. dba Superior
Loan Servicing, and DOES 1 through 10. On January 6, 2023, after having been served
with the lawsuit papers, Defendants filed a demurrer to the original
Complaint. Plaintiffs through their
counsel Brian Stuart opposed the Demurrer.
On February 16, 2023 the Court sustained with 20 days leave to
amend. Plaintiffs’ counsel Mr. Stuart
submitted an Amended Complaint on March 14, 2023, more than 20 days after the
Court’s Order sustaining the Demurrer.
On April 4, 2023, Defendants filed two separate motions to compel
initial responses to written discovery.
Responding to written discovery is an obligation that all plaintiffs and
all defendants in civil litigation must bear.
On April 11, 2023, Plaintiffs attorney, Brian T. Stuart (“Stuart”) filed
a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, without seeking a postponement of the
discovery motions which were set for hearing less than week after the hearing
on his motion to be relieved. On April 21, 2023, Defendants filed a Demurrer
to the First Amended Complaint, setting a hearing for May 26, 2023. Mr. Stuart filed a declaration on April 25,
2023 advising the Court of his clients’ lack of cooperation on discovery and
lack of cooperation on other matters in the case.
II.
Legal Standard & Discussion
Code of Civil Procedure § 284 states that “the attorney in
an action…may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final
determination, as follows: (1) upon the consent of both client and attorney…;
(2) upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or
attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 284;
CRC 3.1362.) The withdrawal request may be denied if it would cause an
injustice or undue delay in proceeding; but the court's discretion in this area
is one to be exercised reasonably. (See Mandell v. Superior (1977)
67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4; Lempert¿v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161,
1173.)
In making a motion to be relieved as counsel, the attorney
must comply with procedures set forth in Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362. The
motion must be made using mandatory forms: Notice of Motion and Motion to be
Relieved as Counsel directed to the client – Civil (MC-051); Declaration
“stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the
attorney-client relationship” reasons the motion was brought (MC-052); and a
Proposed Order (MC-053). (Ibid.) The forms must be filed and
served on all parties who have appeared in the case. (Ibid.)
Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Stuart,
moves the Court to relieve him as attorney of record
for Plaintiffs. He properly filed a
Notice of Motion, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration, and Proposed
Order in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362. April 11, 2023, all forms
for the pending motion were served on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs by mail at his clients’
last known address, and by email. On April 11, 2023 proof of service for
said documents was filed with the Court. In his declaration Mr. Stuart notes that his clients have
become unresponsive to counsel in regards to discovery responses.” He
further notes that he and his clients have encountered irreconcilable
differences regarding the status of the case.”
While Plaintiff’s counsel has
complied with all procedural requirements in filing a motion to be relieved as
counsel, the timing of his requested withdrawal could cause an injustice or
undue prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ interests. There are two discovery motions pending for hearing
on May 10, less than a week after the hearing on the motion for leave to
withdraw, and a third hearing set for May 26 on Defendants’ demurrer to the
First Amended Complaint that Mr. Stuart drafted for Plaintiffs in response to
the Court’s granting of the earlier demurrer.
To lessen the foreseeable prejudice that might befall the Plaintiffs if
they were given insufficient time to locate new counsel or address three
pending motions on their own without Mr. Stuart’s assistance, the Court on
its own motion intends to continue
the May 26 hearing on Defendants’ Demurrer and the May 10 hearings on two
defense motions to compel initial discovery to June 9, 2023. Further, the Court intends to condition the
granting of the motion on Mr. Stuart’s giving notice to the Plaintiffs of (1)
the new June 9 hearing dates, (2) the date that Plaintiffs’ written opposition
if any to the motions and demurrer is required to be filed and served on
defense counsel, (3) the July 20, 2023 Case Management Conference, (4) this
Tentative Ruling, and (5) the Court’s signed order granting Mr. Stuart’s motion
to withdraw as counsel.
III.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Brian T. Stuart’s Motion to Be
Relieved As Counsel is GRANTED and the Order will be signed at the hearing.
“After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the
client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until
proof of service of a copy of the signed order on Plaintiff and Defendant has
been filed with the court.” (Id.)
Moving party is also ordered to
give notice of the 5 listed things detailed in the preceding paragraph.