TENTATIVE RULING

Counsel for Plaintiff E D B Construction Management, Inc.’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

The Court will sign the proposed order filed October 14, 2024.

Counsel is ordered to serve the order on Plaintiff E D B Construction Management, Inc. (See Cal. R. Ct., 3.1362(e).) Counsel is not relieved until proof of service of the signed order upon Plaintiff E D B Construction Management, Inc. is filed.

In California, a corporation or business entity, such as Plaintiff E D B Construction Management, Inc., cannot represent itself (through an owner, corporate employee, director or officer) and must retain the services of a licensed attorney in order to prosecute an action. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145-1146 (citing Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101–1103).)

The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Representation for Plaintiff E D B Construction Management, Inc. on January 15, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 19 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Movant to give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This action arises out of alleged tortious interference. Plaintiff E D B Construction Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendants Escher Gunewardena Architecture, Inc. and Frank Escher (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1. Negligence;

2. Fraud;

3. Negligent Misrepresentation; and

4. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.

Shumener, Odson & Oh LLP (“Counsel” or “Movant”), Counsel for Plaintiff E D B Construction Management, Inc. (hereafter, “Client”), filed the instant MC-051 “Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel” (the “Motion”), MC-052 “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel” (the “Declaration”) and MC-053 proposed order (the “Proposed Order”).

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Requirements

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 prescribes the following requirements of a movant seeking to be relieved as counsel:

1. The notice of motion and motion must be directed to the client and must use form MC-051 (“Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil”);

2. The motion must be accompanied by a declaration using form MC-052 (“Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil”) and “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).”;

3. A proposed order must be lodged with the court along with the moving papers and must use form MC-053 (“Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil”) and “must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order.”;

4. “The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case” either by personal service, electronic service, or by mail.

(Cal. R. Ct., 3.1362 (a) – (e).)

“If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.

(Id. at 3.1362(d).)

“Current” means that “the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” (Id.) “Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.” (Id.) “If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.” (Id.)

Here, Counsel satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Counsel submits the Motion, Declaration, and Proposed Order using the mandatory Judicial Council forms. The proofs of service attached to the papers and the proof of service separately filed on October 11, 2024 indicate that the papers were properly served on Client. (See Declaration, § 3b.) Defendants have not appeared in the matter. Counsel has confirmed Client’s current address. (Id.)

The “Notice of Entry of Order” filed on October 21, 2024 and the attached proof of service indicates that Client was given proper notice of the advanced hearing date.

B. Merits

There are two ways in which an “attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination:” (1) when both the client and attorney consent; or (2) when the court orders it upon the client’s or attorney’s application. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.) The court has sound discretion to permit the withdrawal of an attorney. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Id.)

Withdrawal is generally permitted unless there is a compelling reason to continue the representation. (Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462.) There is a compelling reason when the withdrawal would prejudice the client, the other parties in the action, or a third party. (See, e.g., People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406; Linn v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1926) 79 Cal.App. 721, 725.) “Where issues of confidentiality prevent ‘counsel from further disclosure and the court accepts the good faith of counsel's representations, the court should find the conflict sufficiently established and permit withdrawal.’” (Id. (quoting Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592, citing Uhl v. Municipal Court (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 526, 527 and Leversen v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 530, 539).)

Counsel attests that, on October 7, 2024, Client terminated the attorney-client relationship and therefore withdrawal is mandatory pursuant to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16, subdivision (a)(4). (Declaration at § 2.)

Based on Counsel’s declaration, the Court finds that good cause exists for Counsel’s withdrawal and that such withdrawal will not prejudice Client or any other party.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.