Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00212, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.
Case Number: 21PSCV00212 Hearing Date: November 21, 2022 Dept: R
MIRA POKHAREL vs KAY THREADING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et
al. . (21PSCV00212)
________________________________________________________________________
Defense Counsel’s
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Responding Party: Unopposed (due
9 court days before hearing)
Tentative Ruling
Defense
Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective
upon filing of the proof of service of this order on all parties who have
appeared in the case and filing a proposed order.
Background
This is an employment case. Plaintiff MIRA POKHAREL alleges
the following against Defendants KAY THREADING and BASSAM ALFAROUH: Plaintiff
was employed at KAY THREADING from November 2012 to December 2020. However,
Defendants failed to provide proper compensation, break periods, etc.
On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit for:
1.
FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE
2.
UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES
3.
UNPAID MEAL PERIODS
4.
UNAPID REST PERIODS
5.
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§226(a)
6.
PENALTIES UNDER LABOR CODE §203 and
7.
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
On August 16, 2021, Defendants filed their Answer and a
Cross-Complaint for: FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, ABUSE OF PROCESS, TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES, CONVERSION AND DAMAGES.
On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed her answer to the
cross-complaint.
On October 13, 2022, Defense Counsel filed the instant
Motion to be relieved as Counsel.
On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a declaration
regarding an OSC for failure to appear.
Legal Standard
The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw,
and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the
client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21
Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince
(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a
notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved
as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms
and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client
relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought
instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion
to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice
of motion and motion and declaration on the client and on all other parties who
have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared
on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion
to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the
effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy
of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.
Discussion
Here, Defense Counsel Rupal Law and Mandeep S. Rupal, Esq
filed the instant motion because their clients failed to comply with terms of
the settlement agreement.
As the merits of the case appear to have been adjudicated—minimizing
prejudice to Defendants—and Defendants have been served with the instant
motion, the court finds no reason to deny the motion.
However, Defense Counsel has not provided a proposed order.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defense Counsel’s Motion to Be
Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon filing of the proof of
service of this order on all parties who have appeared in the case and
filing a proposed order.