Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV09974, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09974    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   February 22, 2023                              

CASE NAME:           Ranesha Sweeney, et al. v. Middleton Financial Investment Corp., et al.

CASE NO.:                21STCV09974

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Defendants’ Counsel Loyst P. Fletcher 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of February 16, 2023

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants 

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On March 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Ranesha Sweeney; Ellexus Theus; Alani Greenway, an individual, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Ranesha Sweeney; Malik Greenway, an individual, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Ranesha Sweeney; Siniyah Williams, an individual, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Ranesha Sweeney; and Kasiyah Williams, an individual, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Ranesha Sweeney (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Middleton Financial Investment Corp., and Christopher Champion (“Defendants.”) The complaint alleged seven causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Negligence, (5) Nuisance, (6) Wrongful Eviction, and (7) Violation of Cal. Code Section 1950.5(1). The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were tenants of the Subject Property, which is owned and managed by Defendants. During Plaintiffs tenancy, the Subject Property experience various substandard living conditions. These included, but were not limited to, water leaks, exposed electrical wiring, infestation, and mold. Plaintiffs informed Defendants of these conditions, but Defendants failed to correct these issues.

The current Motion to be Relieved as Counsel was filed on February 6, 2023. No opposition has been filed as of February 16, 2023.

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:

Defendants’ counsel, Loyst P. Fletcher moves to withdraw as counsel of record.

            In the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, counsel indicates that the last time counsel spoke to Defendant Champion was on November 13, 2022. During that conversation, Defendant disagreed with counsel’s advice and provided instructions to counsel on “how he wanted to move forward with this case.” (Dec. Fletcher ¶ 2.) Additionally, counsel indicates that he withdraws as counsel based on State Bar of California Rule 3- 700(c)(1)(a), (d), and (f).[1] Counsel took Plaintiffs deposition and sent emails to Defendants. (Dec. Fletcher ¶ 8-9.) Counsel has sent 10 emails to Defendants with discovery requests, but Defendants have refused to speak with or contact counsel. (Id. at ¶ 13.) In the updated declaration filed on February 9^th, Counsel indicates that the parties spoke on February 6^th concerning the ex parte document, where Defendant Champion responded to the email and confirmed receipt of the current Motion.

            Additionally, in the attached declaration, counsel indicates that during their November 13^th conversation, Defendant Champion confirmed his contact information for both him and his corporation. (Dec. Fletcher filed 2/9/2022 ¶ 3(b) and ¶ 2 of attached declaration.)

Counsel has provided all the required documents under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362. The Proof of Service filed concurrently indicates that both Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants have been served, via mail and email.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Conclusion:

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

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED effective upon filing proof of service of this order on Defendants.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             February 21, 2023                   _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court