Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV04763, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04763    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 8, 2023               TRIAL DATE: September 5, 2023

CASE:                         Susan Primorac v. 901 South Broadway Limited Partnership, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV04763           

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Attorney Ada R. Cordero-Sacks, counsel for Defendant 901 South Broadway Limited Partnership

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 5/4/23

CASE HISTORY:

·         02/08/21: Complaint filed

·         06/25/21: Cross-Complaint filed by 901 South Broadway, LP as to Susan Primorac and Royal Security Group, Inc.

·         11/17/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff rented an apartment in Defendants’ building. She alleges that the building’s security guard physically attacked her, which caused her to suffer from PTSD, and that Defendants refused to rent her a parking space to accommodate her disability (the PTSD). 

In a cross-complaint, Defendant 901 South Broadway alleges that Plaintiff breached the written lease agreement, and that Defendant Royal Security was negligent in performing its duties. 

Attorney Ada R. Cordero-Sacks, counsel for Defendant 901 South Broadway Limited Partnership, moves to be relieved as counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Ada R. Cordero-Sacks’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant 901 South Broadway, LP is GRANTED.

            This ruling is conditioned on Moving Counsel filing proof of service of the Court’s order.

DISCUSSION:

Attorney Ada R. Cordero-Sacks, counsel for Defendant 901 South Broadway Limited Partnership, moves to be relieved as counsel.

Moving counsel filed all three required forms (MC-051, -052, and -053) and included a proof of service as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d). Moving counsel’s declaration states that she served Defendant by mail and confirmed the address is current by conversation. (MC-052 ¶ 3.)

In general, an attorney may withdraw with or without cause so long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the client’s interest – i.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation, because that would prejudice client, but can withdraw otherwise. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915.) The court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where the withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding, but the court’s discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)   

Here, the matter is set for trial on September 5, 2023, (MC-052 ¶ 5.) There is a final status conference set for August 18, 2023, which is the next hearing on this matter. (MC-052 ¶ 4.) The risk of prejudice to Plaintiff is therefore low due to the relative distance of the trial date. Moving Counsel’s declaration states that irreconcilable differences have developed between Moving Counsel and Defendant.  (MC-052 ¶ 7.) In light of the evidence of the breakdown in the relationship and the relative distance of trial, the Court finds that these circumstances warrant withdrawal.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Attorney Ada R. Cordero-Sacks’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant 901 South Broadway, LP is GRANTED.

            This ruling is conditioned on Moving Counsel filing proof of service of the Court’s order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2023                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court