Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 20STCV40258, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40258    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   May 2, 2023                                       

CASE NAME:            Kaitlyn Welling, as Trustee of the Richard B. Rubin Declaration of Trust Dated December 15, 1987 v. Hector Alix Guillen

CASE NO.:                20STCV40258

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Defendant Hector Alix Guillen 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of April 26, 2023.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Hector Alix Guillen.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff Kaitlyn Welling filed a complaint against Defendant Hector Alix Guillen and Does 1 through 50. The complaint alleged five causes of action: (1) Accounting, (2) Partition of Real Property, (3) Declaratory Relief, (4) Negligence, and (5) Waste. The complaint alleges that the Defendant resides at the Property that is subject to the Richard B. Rubin Declaration of Trust. The parties agreed that the Defendant would pay rent to reside in the property, but the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay rent. Further, the Defendant hired individuals to repair and remodel the property without approval or permits.

On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default.

On December 23, 2020, the Parties entered a Stipulation to allow the Defendant to file an Answer and Cross-Complaint.

On December 23, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint.

On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On May 27, 2021, Defendant filed an Amended Cross-Complaint.

On June 9, 2021, On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed an Answer to the Amended Cross-Complaint.

On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

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:

Defendant’s counsel, J. Michael Echevarria, moves to withdraw as counsel of record.

In the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, counsel states that there has been breakdown in the working relationship between counsel and client, but the facts that give rise to this breakdown must be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 6068(e), rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and the attorney client privilege. However, counsel indicates that if further reasoning is required, an in-camera hearing may be heard. Counsel indicates that Defendant’s address was confirmed via Whitepages.com within the last 30 days.

Counsel has provided all the required documents under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362. The Proofs of Service attached to each of the forms submitted by counsel indicate that Plaintiff was served via email only and Defendant was served via mail. The Court has the discretion to question counsel as to the reasonings behind the withdrawal.

Conclusion:

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

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED subject to counsel filing proof of service of the order on Defendant/Cross-complainant.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             May 2, 2023                __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court