Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 20STCV24292, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24292    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:    January 3, 2023                                              

CASE NAME:           Blake Ring v. Kasis Construction, Inc.

CASE NO.:                20STCV24292

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Barry Elliot’s attorney Natalie Kruger

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of December 29, 2022

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.     An order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Barry Elliott 

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.     Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED, until proof of service is provided.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On June 26, 2022, Plaintiff Blake Ring (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Kasis Construction, Inc. (“Defendant.”) The complaint alleged one cause of action for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that Plaintiff and Defendant entered an agreement to have Defendant perform landscaping services at Plaintiff’s residence. However, the work provided by Defendant was not sufficient and was comprised of various defects and deficiencies.

On March 3, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint.

On October 8, 2021, Cross-Defendant Homemade Custom Builders, Inc., filed an Answer.

On October 12, 2021, Cross-Defendant TruTeam of California, Inc., filed an Answer.

On October 25, 2021, Cross-Defendant Todd Mazer filed an Answer.

On November 9, 2022, Cross-Defendant Expert Decking & Waterproofing, Inc., filed an Answer.

On December 29, 2021, Cross-Defendant Fireplace Guys, Inc., filed an Answer.

On March 29, 2022, Cross-Defendant All American Cabinetry, Inc., filed an Answer.

On April 7, 2022, Cross-Defendant Emilio Marron filed an Answer.

On April 18, 2022, Mike Tech Services filed an Answer.

On April 21, 2022, Cross-Defendant Pete Alvarez filed an Answer.

On May 5, 2022, Cross-Defendant Maddco Drywall Contractors, Inc., filed an Answer.

On May 20, 2022, Cross-Defendant Dan-Son Air, Inc., filed an Answer.

On June 6, 2022, Cross-Defendant Barry Elliott dba ABBS Services filed an Answer.

On June 30, 2022, Cross-Defendant Future Electric, Inc., filed an Answer.

On August 19, 2022, Cross-Defendant Overhead Door & Fireside Experts, Inc., filed an Answer.

The current Motion to be Relieved as Counsel was filed on October 20, 2022. No opposition has been filed as of December 29, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD:

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other.   (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (b).)  An attorney is permitted to withdraw where conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation.  (See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).)  “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)   

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(e)).   

Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case.  (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(d).)  The court may delay 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(e).) 

ANALYSIS:

            Jackie Rose Kruger moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Barry Elliot dba ABBS Services. The Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion states that there are irreconcilable differences “rendering it impossible to ethically and fairly represent the client.” The declaration also indicates that the client was served with the motions papers at the client’s last known address and the attorney confirmed the client’s last known address via telephone.

While the Court finds the reasoning sufficient, Defendant’s attorney has failed to attach proofs of service that these documents were served to the client.

            Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED until January 11, 2023.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             January 3, 2023                       _______­­­­­­­­­­___________________________                                                                                                                        Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court