Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV04533, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04533    Hearing Date: July 30, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 7-30-24

Case # 23STCV04533

Trial Date: 8-5-24

RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING ATTORNEY: Patrick Gangitano

CLIENT: Defendants, Greenline Restoration, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Sexual Harassment in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(j); 2. Failure to Investigate and Prevent Harassment in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(k); 3. Retaliation in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(h); 4. Rest Break Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7; 5. Violation of Labor Code § 203; 6. Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; and, 7. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6 8. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

RULING: Denied.

Counsel for Defendant Greenline Restoration, Inc.moves to be relieved as counsel of record on grounds: “1. The client has breached and repudiated its agreement or obligation with Gangitano Law, PC, as to expenses and/or fees (Rule Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(5) and rule, 1.16(b)(6); 2. The client conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for Gangitano Law, PC to carry on its employment (Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4). 3. The client has failed to heed to the advice of counsel (Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4); 4. The attorney has submitted several requests to the client/Respondent to execute a Substitution of Attorney, and the client has failed and has refused to do so.”

“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 comes three court and five calendar days before the scheduled start of the trial. The corporate defendant that cannot appear in court without counsel.

Public policy generally prohibits forced representation of a party in civil litigation. (Cunningham v. Superior Court (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 336, 354–355.) Withdrawal however requires consideration of other guidelines. While a potential argument for withdrawal with “cause” lacks support, an attorney should remain mindful of withdrawing at a point of extreme prejudice to the client. “We see no basis in the law, or in logic, for a conclusion that an attorney never may

withdraw from a case except for cause. A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate ... by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client's case. (Citations.) We are, however, aware of no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests. (Citations.) (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915 accord Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197 [“It was the duty of the trial court to see that [Plaintiff] was protected, so far as possible, from the consequences of [counsel’s] improper abandonment of his client”].) “A lawyer shall not terminate a representation until the lawyer has taken reasonable* steps to avoid reasonably* foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel ...” (Cal. St. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(d).)

The court normally allows for leave to withdraw, where a trial continuance remains available. At the time of the tentative ruling, the court has not entered the stipulation seeking a continuance of the trial. Given the case is less than less than two years old, however, the court will consider a trial continuance.

Regardless, the motion lacks a filed and served copy of the proposed order in violation of CRC 3.1362(d). An attorney seeking withdrawal as counsel of record must comply with all procedural requirements under Code Civil Procedure section 284 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(a), (b), (e), which requires the use of Judicial Form MC-051 (Notice), Judicial Form MC-052 (Declaration), and Judicial Form MC-053 (Proposed Order). All forms must be served on the client and all parties. (CRC 3.1362(d).)

The motion is therefore denied without prejudice.

Moving Counsel to provide notice.