Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: BC583946, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

David E. Kenner, counsel of record for Defendant Marion “Suge” Knight, seeks to be relieved as counsel. Mr. Kenner’s declaration states, “Breakdown in the Attorney-Client relationship.” Defendant and Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

A jury trial is scheduled for April 7, 2025—only two court days after the hearing on this motion.

A lawyer may not cease representation until he has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel. (Rules of Prof. Conduct Rule 1.16.) “A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client [citation], or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case. [Citation.]” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915 (Ramirez).)

Defendant, who is incarcerated, states that he learned about Mr. Kenner’s intent to withdraw when his family read public news articles about the motion. (Def. Opposition at p. 1, ¶ 2.) Defendant received a copy of the motion via mail on March 24, 2025. (Id., ¶ 3.) He was confused and shocked that this matter would be decided mere days before the scheduled trial. (Id., ¶¶ 2-3.) “To say [Defendant] was surprised by what [the motion] stated would be an understatement.” (Id., ¶ 3.) Defendant was never made aware that there was any breakdown in the relationship, and Defendant has not expressed any intention to terminate his counsel’s services. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendant “[has] not requested this change in representation and was not properly consulted about the motion to be relieved prior to its filing.” (Id. at p. 2.) Mr. Kenner has represented Defendant for many years. Mr. Kenner’s motion—filed one month before trial, received by Defendant two weeks before trial, and heard only two court days before trial—is a request to abandon his client at a critical point, severely prejudicing Defendant. (See Ramirez, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 915.) This prejudice is amplified by Defendant’s incarceration, hindering his ability to obtain replacement counsel and rendering his self-representation nearly impossible.

Additionally, a lawyer may not withdraw “if his withdrawal will work injustice upon a third party. Such is not in keeping with the place that the profession holds in the machinery designed for measuring justice.” (Linn v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1926) 79 Cal.App. 721, 725 (Linn).)

Plaintiffs correctly observe that Mr. Kenner withdrawing at this stage will force the trial to be continued again. (Pl. Opposition at pp. 3-4.) As Plaintiffs note, “Since the mistrial declared on June 22, 2022, the trial date has been continued on an additional five occasions.” (Id. at p. 3.) Plaintiffs have diligently prepared for trial and are ready to proceed on April 7, 2025. (Ibid.)

The Court is entitled to consider the status of the case, the length of representation, the length of notice provided by counsel, and whether the motion is brought on the eve of trial. (Linn, supra, 79 Cal.App.at pp. 725-726.) Plaintiffs have waited nearly three years for a retrial, and they filed this case nearly ten years ago. Defendant is shocked by Mr. Kenner’s request and disagrees with the asserted reason for withdrawal. The facts and procedural posture of this case make it evident that all parties—especially Mr. Kenner’s client—will be prejudiced if he withdraws.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court