Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV28273, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28273    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     June 12, 2025             TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

                                                          

CASE:                         Lonnie Levin v. Stachs LLC d/b/a Eaze

 

CASE NO.:                 24STCV28273           

 

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

MOVING PARTY:               Attorney Aaron Nesbit, counsel for Defendant

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of June 9, 2025.

 

CASE HISTORY:

·         10/29/24: Complaint filed.

·         03/24/25: Bankruptcy Stay.

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is a wage and hour and wrongful termination action. Plaintiff alleges that he was systematically underpaid and was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the wage and hour violations.

 

Attorney Aaron Nesbit, counsel for Defendant, moves to be relieved as counsel.

           

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Attorney Aaron Nesbit, counsel for Defendant, moves to be relieved as counsel.

 

Moving counsel filed all three required forms (MC-051, -052, and -053) and states under penalty of perjury that the papers were served by mail at Defendant’s last known address. (MC-052 Attach. ¶ 5.). Moving counsel states that he confirmed that the address was current by telephone. (MC-052 ¶ 3(b).)

 

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, trial in this matter is not yet set, and the only other hearings are a Case Management Conference set to coincide with this motion and a Non-Appearance Case Review regarding the bankruptcy proceeding. (See MC-052 ¶¶ 4-6.) The risk of prejudice to Defendant is therefore minimal. Moving Counsel states that withdrawal is necessary because Defendant has been dissolved in bankruptcy and can no longer pay for legal services. (MC-052 Attach. ¶ 4.) In light of the low risk of prejudice to the Defendant at this juncture, the Court finds that Moving Counsel has demonstrated good cause for withdrawal.

 

Accordingly, Attorney Aaron Nesbit’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant 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:  June 12, 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.

 




Website by Triangulus