Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01341, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV01341 Hearing Date: October 23, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: October 23, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01341
CASE NAME: Madhukumar Sripathi . Ashok Sreepathi, et al.
ATTORNEY NAME: Craig B. Forry, Esq., counsels of record for Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi
TRIAL DATE: February 3, 2025
MOTION: (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Discuss whether trial date will need to be postponed to afford client time to locate new counsel
I. Background
On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff, Madhukumar Sripathi (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Ashok Sreepathi, Suresh Sripathi, and DOES 1 through 20. On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Intentional Misrepresentation; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Disgorgement of All Sums Paid to Unlicensed Contractor; and (5) Declaratory Relief.
On September 17, 2024, Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi’s attorney, Craig B. Forry, Esq., (“Forry”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi.
Currently, trial is set for February 3, 2025.
II. Legal Standard & Discussion
Code of Civil Procedure section 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, Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi’s attorney, Forry, moves the Court to relieve him as attorney of record for Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi. Forry properly filed a Notice of Motion, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration, and Proposed Order in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. On September 17, 2024, all original forms for the pending motion were served on Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi by mail at the client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with the declaration. Further, on September 17, 2024, Forry provided proofs of service that the motion was served on Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi via mail. The attorney indicates that he has been able to confirm within the past thirty (30) days that Ashok Sreepathi’s address is current via conversation with the client.
In the declaration, Forry notes that: “The attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to the point that Attorney Craig B. Forry can no longer continue to represent Defendant and Cross-Complainant Ashok Sreepathi because conduct and decisions by client render it unreasonably difficult for attorney to carry out the representation effectively and within the California Rules of Profession Conduct.” He further contends that “[t]here is a break down in the attorney-client relationship sufficient to justify withdrawal of Attorney, and the overwhelming and primary motivation for the Attorney’s withdrawal is the obligation to adhere to the ethical imperatives under California statute or California State Bar rules, and such other reasons subject to the attorney-client confidential communication.” Lastly, Forry asserts that “Client has failed to agree to a substitution of attorney as of the filing of the Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel-Civil.”
Since Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi’s attorney has complied with all procedural requirements in filing a motion to be relieved as counsel and because the withdrawal would not cause an injustice or undue delay in proceedings, the Court finds that withdrawal of Craig B. Forry as attorney of record for Defendant, Ashok Sreepathi, can be accomplished without undue prejudice to his interests.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Craig B. Forry, Esq.’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 ordered to give notice.