Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV19141, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19141    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-5-24

Case # 20STCV19141

Trial Date: 4-29-24

RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING ATTORNEY: James McDonald

CLIENT:  Defendant, Steven Barbarich

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Marilyn Paredes alleges an independent contractor and subsequent employment relationship with Majestic Ventures, LLC dba Vacation Homes 365 and/or Steven Barbarich beginning in April 2020. Plaintiff worked as a manager for the enterprise, which rented a portfolio of at least 18 “vacation homes,” including coordination of all operational aspects. Plaintiff expended personal funds for items such as cleaning crews and security services, as required, with the intention of obtaining reimbursement. Upon further inquiry, Plaintiff was instead terminated on April 14, 2022.

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Failure to Pay Timely Earned Wages, Violation of Labor Code section 2802, and Violation of Labor Code section 226.8. On November 14, 2022, Defendants answered and filed a cross-complaint for Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage, and Defamation. Defendants/Cross-Complainants contend following termination, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant began to contact known clients for the delivery of disparaging information/accusations regarding company operations. A special motion to strike the cross-complaint was denied on January 12, 2023.

RULING: Granted.

Counsel for defendant “Steven Barbarich, individually and as Manager of Majestic Ventures, LLC dba Vacation Homes 365,” moves to be relieved as counsel of record, due to unspecified “irreconcilable differences.” Counsel maintains the firm in fact withdrew in 2021, but remains identified as counsel of record.

“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 necessity of client confidentiality, and 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 motion is therefore granted.

Order not effective until service on the client. It remains unclear whether a corporate entity exists or if the title constitutes a fictitious business name. The court therefore notes that the corporate entity 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.)

Trial remains set for April 29, 2024.

Moving attorney to provide notice.