Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV06365, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06365    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 9, 2023               TRIAL DATE: August 8, 2023

CASE:                         Pro-Com Products, Inc. v. Jie Wang

CASE NO.:                 21STCV06365           

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Adam I. Miller and Corey A. Miller, Attorneys for Defendant

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

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a tort action that was filed on February 16, 2021.  In the First Amended Complaint, filed on June 18, 2021, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant stole corporate property during her employment with Plaintiff.

            Attorneys Adam I. Miller and Corey A. Miller, counsel for Defendant, move to be relieved as counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Adam I. Miller and Corey A. Miller’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant is GRANTED.

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

DISCUSSION:

            Attorneys Adam I. Miller and Corey A. Miller, counsel for Defendant, move 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 they served Defendant by mail and confirmed the address is current by conversation. (MC-052 ¶ 3.) Moving counsel also filed a supplemental declaration served on Defendant on April 10, 2023, titled “Amended Declaration of Adam I. Miller in Support of Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel.” The Court construes this document as the document that is referenced as the attachment on form MC-052.

In general, an attorney may withdraw with or without cause as 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 August 8, 2023, (MC-052 ¶ 5.) There is a final status conference set for July 24, 2023 as 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, that attorney-client communication has broken down, and that Defendant has breached her Retainer Agreement by failing to pay.  (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 Adam I. Miller and Corey A. Miller’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant is GRANTED.

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

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 9, 2023                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.