Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV11727, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11727    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 11, 2025                      TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Arturo Montoya-Bautista et al. v. Architectural Surfaces, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV11727           

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Attorney Niv V. Davidovich, counsel for Defendant Imperial Tile & Stone

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 03/06/25.

CASE HISTORY:

·         05/24/23: Complaint filed.

·         12/28/23: Cross-Complaint filed by Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

·         12/29/23: Cross-Complaint filed by Jacobe Enterprises, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a toxic tort action alleging that Plaintiff Montoya-Bautista developed silicosis and consequential injuries by breathing in dust from Defendants’ stone products generated by his work as a fabricator and polisher of stone countertops.

Attorney Niv V. Davidovich, counsel for Defendant Imperial Tile & Stone, moves to be relieved as counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Niv V. Davidovich, counsel for Defendant Imperial Tile & Stone, moves to be relieved as counsel.

Moving counsel filed all three required forms (MC-051, -052, and -053) and filed proof of service with the Court. Moving counsel served the motion on Defendant by mail and confirmed that the address was current via the California Secretary of State. (MC-052 ¶ 3(b).)

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.)

Moving Counsel states that withdrawal is necessary because of an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (MC-052 ¶ 2.) Here, trial in this matter is not yet set. (MC-052 ¶ 6.) The risk of prejudice to this party is therefore low, and, in light of the irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, the Court finds that the circumstances warrant permitting withdrawal.

Accordingly, Attorney Niv V. Davidovich’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Imperial Tile & Stone. is GRANTED.

This ruling is conditioned on Moving Counsel giving notice to all parties and filing proof of service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 11, 2025                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.