Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV06304, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06304    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 6-11-24

Case # 21STCV06304

Trial Date: Not Set




MOVING ATTORNEY: Jackson Lewis, L.P.

CLIENT: Defendant, Haute House Home Furnishings, Inc.



Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Defendant



Plaintiff Carlos Tostada suffered a workplace injury, leading to a workers’ compensation claim and identification of disability status. Plaintiff returned to work with a reasonable accommodation need, including no lifting beyond 15 pounds. Plaintiff alleges intentional assignment of duties to intended to exacerbate the accommodation. Plaintiff was eventually terminated.


On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Discrimination Based on Disability in Violation of Gov. Code §12940 Et Seq. 2. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of Cal. Govt Code § I2940(m) 3. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 4. Harassment in Violation of FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.] 5. Failure to Prevent Harassment. Discrimination & Retaliation in Violation of FEHA [Gov. Code §12940 et seq.]


On July 12, 2022, the court granted the motion of Defendant Haute House Home Furnishings, Inc. to compel arbitration. On March 26, 2024, the court restored the case to the civil active calendar pursuant to the parties oral stipulation.


RULING: Granted.

Counsel for Defendant Haute House Home Furnishings, Inc. moves to be relieved as counsel of record, due to “Professional considerations require termination of representation. See ABA Opinion 476.” The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.


“The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) The court accepts the “professional considerations” concern. The court will meet counsel in chambers, if requested. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (e); Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1133; Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 590- 593.) The motion otherwise complies with all procedural requirements. The unchallenged motion is therefore granted.


Order not effective until service on the client. The corporate entity, in whatever form, cannot appear in the action without representation from an admitted attorney, if applicable. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.)


The court will concurrently conduct the case management conference.


Moving attorney to provide notice.