Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV35517, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35517    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 5, 2023                     TRIAL DATE: June 6, 2023

CASE:                         Lilia Garcia-Brower, California Labor Commissioner, v. Sara Management LLC et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV35517           

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Attorney Justin G. Schmidt, counsel for Defendant Alexander Viorel Petrusan.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 1/1/2023

PROOF OF SERVICE:

• Correct Address: OK.
• 16/21 (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b)): OK. Served by e-service and US Mail on December 7, 2022

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action by the California Labor Commissioner filed on September 27, 2021 pursuant to section 98.7 of the Labor Code to enforce the findings of the Commissioner that Defendants violated numerous provisions of the Labor Code.

Attorney Justin G. Schmidt, counsel for Defendant Alexander Viorel Petrusan, moves to be relieved as counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Justin G. Schmidt’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Alexander Viorel Petrusan is GRANTED.

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

//

DISCUSSION:

Attorney Justin G. Schmidt, counsel for Defendant Alexander Viorel Petrusan, 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 he served Defendant by mail and confirmed the address is current by telephone. (MC-052 ¶ 3.)

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 June 6, 2023, (MC-052 ¶ 5.) There is a final status conference set for May 23, 2023, and a Post-Mediation Status Conference scheduled for January 11, 2023. (MC-052 ¶¶ 4-6.) 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 ¶ 2.) 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 Justin G. Schmidt’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Alexander Viorel Petrusan is GRANTED.

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

On its own motion, the Court advances and continues the post-mediation status conference to March 15, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 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.