Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV34020, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV34020 Hearing Date: August 1, 2022 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: August
1, 2022 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
CASE: Trio Renewable Gas, Inc. v. Steaman
Group LLC, et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCV34020 
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL x2
MOVING PARTY: Steven Goldsobel of the Law Offices of Steven
Goldsobel, Attorney for Defendants
RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on
eCourt as of July 28, 2022.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff compensation for work
done as agreed in a contract between the parties.
Defendants’ counsel Stephen
Goldsobel of the Law Offices of Steven Goldsobel moves to be relieved as
counsel for Defendants Jack Fierstadt and Steaman Group LLC.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants’ counsel Stephen
Goldsobel of the Law Offices of Steven Goldsobel motions to be relieved as
counsel for Defendants Jack Fierstadt and Steaman Group LLC are GRANTED.
DISCUSSION:
Defendants’
counsel Stephen Goldsobel of the Law Offices of Steven Goldsobel moves to be
relieved as counsel for Defendants Jack Fierstadt and Steaman Group LLC.
Moving counsel filed all three required forms (MC-051,
-052, and -053). Moving counsel included a proof of service indicating that the
forms were served on the opposing parties and the client as required by
California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d.) Moving
counsel’s declaration states that Defendants were served by electronic service only
and includes a declaration stating that moving counsel has confirmed that
Defendants’ email addresses were current, as required by rule 3.1362(d)(2). (MC-052
¶ 3, Attachment 2.)
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 not yet set for trial.
(MC-052 ¶ 6.) The only other outstanding hearings in this matter listed on the
form are a Case Management Conference and a hearing on a Demurrer, both
scheduled for July 20, 2022, the latter of which has already been heard and the
former has been continued to this date. (MC-052 ¶¶ 4-5.) The risk of prejudice
to Defendants is therefore minimal. Therefore, in light of the statement of
irreconcilable differences between moving counsel and the Defendants. (MC-052 ¶
2.) the Court finds that there is not a basis to refuse to permit moving
counsel to withdraw.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly,
the motions to be relieved as counsel are GRANTED. Moving Party will be relieved as counsel for Defendants upon filing and serving the
proof of service on the Court’s order and notice of ruling.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 2022 ___________________________________
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.