Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00432, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00432    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing Date:                         Monday, February 27, 2023

Defense Counsel, Robert J. Spitz’s, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Responding Party: Unopposed as of 2/10

Tentative Ruling

Defense Counsel, Robert J. Spitz’s, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon [see below].

Background

This is a contracts case. Plaintiff DWAINE ERIC HAYES alleges that the parties entered into an agreement wherein Defendant NORMA CARINA GUTIERREZ would purchase Plaintiff’s insurance business for $165,000, but Defendant did not pay the entire sum.

On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit for Breach of Contract, Common Count, and Fraud.

On September 16, 2021, the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend as to the fraud cause of action.

On October 12, 2021, Defendant filed a cross-complaint.

On January 23, 2023, Defense Counsel filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

Merits

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.

Here, Defense Counsel Spitz has filed a motion to be relieved because his client has breached the retainer agreement. Moreover, the proof of service indicates that Defendant has served notice of the motion and motion on Plaintiff’s Counsel, Brian C, via mail. Miles. However, while the MC-052 form indicates that the client herself has been served via mail, the Proof of Service does not indicate that. Notwithstanding the foregoing, considering that the case is relatively short lived with no motions on calendar (aside from this one) and Defendant has not filed an opposition to explain potential prejudice, the court finds good cause to grant the motion.

Conclusion

Based on the concerns, this motion is granted, effective upon the filing of proof of service of the motion upon Defendant and filing of proof of service of the court’s order relieving Counsel, which is to be sent to Plaintiff, Defendants, and all other parties who have appeared in the case.