Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV46426, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46426    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 22, 2022                TRIAL DATE: June 6, 2022

CASE:                         Roger Romero Acosta v. Aqua Construction Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV46426           

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL (x2)

MOVING PARTY:               (1) (2) Natasha Buchanan, counsel for Aqua Construction, Inc. and Ivan Leo Fortin, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 12/20/22

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on December 20, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against him for his disability caused by injuries sustained at Defendants’ job site, and retaliated against him by terminating him for pursuing a worker’s compensation claim.

Attorney Natasha Buchanan, counsel for Defendants Aqua Construction, Inc. and Ivan Leo Fortin, Jr. moves to be relieved as counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Attorney Natasha Buchanan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Aqua Construction, Inc. is GRANTED.

            Attorney Natasha Buchanan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Ivan Leo Fortin, Jr. is GRANTED.

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

//

//

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel for Aqua Construction, Inc.

            Attorney Natasha Buchanan moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Aqua Construction, Inc.

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 mailing invoices to that address and confirming via the Secretary of State’s website the most recent statement of information, filed November 16, 2022. (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 March 6, 2023. (MC-052 ¶¶ 4-6.) The risk of prejudice to Defendant is therefore low due to the relative distance of the trial date. Moving Counsel’s declaration states that the working relationship between Moving Counsel and Defendant has broken down, and that the Defendant has failed to comply with the retainer agreement. (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 Natasha Buchanan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Aqua Construction, Inc. is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Moving Counsel filing proof of service of the Court’s order.

Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel for Ivan Leo Fortin, Jr.

            Attorney Natasha Buchanan moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Ivan Leo Fortin, Jr.

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 mailing invoices to that address and confirming via the Secretary of State’s website the most recent statement of information, filed November 16, 2022. (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 March 6, 2023. (MC-052 ¶¶ 4-6.) The risk of prejudice to Defendant is therefore low due to the relative distance of the trial date. Moving Counsel’s declaration states that the working relationship between Moving Counsel and Defendant has broken down, and that the Defendant has failed to comply with the retainer agreement. (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 Natasha Buchanan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Ivan Leo Fortin, Jr. is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Moving Counsel filing proof of service of the Court’s order.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Attorney Natasha Buchanan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Aqua Construction, Inc. is GRANTED.

            Attorney Natasha Buchanan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Ivan Leo Fortin, Jr. 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: December 22, 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.