Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: LC104878, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LC104878    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 31, 2023                   TRIAL DATE: December 20, 2022

CASE:                         Patients Corp et al. v. Michelle Denise Zemba et al.

CASE NO.:                 LC104878           

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL x2

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Steven Shapero, counsel for Michelle Zemba and Mohammad Reza Saadatmandi

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 12/16/22

CASE HISTORY:

·         11/16/16: Complaint filed.

·         06/02/17: Cross Complaint filed.

·         12/29/17: First Amended Cross Complaint filed.

·         10/23/19: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for unfair competition. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants attempted to mislead the City of Los Angeles and the State of California concerning the ownership, rights, and interests of Plaintiffs to operate a separate cannabis dispensary while posing as the Plaintiffs.

Attorney Steven Shapero moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Michelle Zemba and Mohammad Reza Saadatmandi.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Steven Shapero’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED.

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

//

DISCUSSION:

Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for Michelle Zemba and Mohammed Reza Saadatmandi

            Attorney Steven Shapero moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Michelle Zemba and for Defendant Mohammed Reza Saadatmandi.

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 Defendants by mail and confirmed the address is current by telephone, conversation, and email. (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, trial is already underway. (MC-052 ¶ 5.) The risk of prejudice to this defendant is, therefore, extreme. However, this motion is precipitated by a conflict of interest between moving counsel’s clients in this matter, as well as a separate conflict of interest with Defendant Zemba and moving counsel. (MC-052 ¶ 2.) Under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, a lawyer cannot represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client, or if there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, without informed written consent. (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 (a)-(b).) Even if informed written consent is obtained, a lawyer may only represent a client affected by such a risk if the lawyer reasonably believes that they will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each client, the representation is not otherwise prohibited by law, and the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client in the same proceeding. (Rule 1.7(d).)  Thus, despite the risk of prejudice, where, as here, moving counsel has attested to an incurable conflict of interest, the Court finds that withdrawal as counsel should be permitted.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Attorney Steven Shapero’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED.

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

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2023                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court