Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV15219, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15219    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   January 20, 2023                                            

CASE NAME:           Nelly Carreon v. La Michoacana Premium De Maywood, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                21STCV15219

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Defendant’s Counsel Isaiah Artest and the Lew Firm, APC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of January 17, 2023

REQUESTED RELIEF:

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff Nelly Carreon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants La Michoacana Premium De Maywood, Inc., Javier Andrade Barragan, Marco A. Andrade, Perla Doe, Alfredo Doe (“Defendants.”) The compliant alleged 15 causes of action including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, labor code violates, FEHA violations, battery, and assault. Plaintiff alleges that during their employment with Defendant La Michoacana, she was sexually harassed by other employees, which was known to Plaintiff’s supervisor. Despite complaining about Defendant Alfredo’s unwanted comments, Plaintiff’s complaints were dismissed. Defendant Alfredo later sexually assaulted Plaintiff, which Plaintiff then filed a police report. After making complaints, Plaintiff did not feel comfortable working with Defendant Alfredo, who was allowed to come back to work after being arrested. After Plaintiff told Defendants that she was afraid to work with Defendant Alfredo, she was constructively terminated.

On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed two amendments to complaint, fictitious/incorrect names, correcting Perla Doe as Perla Cardena and Alfredo Doe as Alfredo Santillan.

On June 1, 2021, Defendants La Michoacana Premium De Maywood, Inc., Javier Andrade Barragan, Marco A. Andrade, and Perla Cardena filed an Answer.

On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to Defendant Alfredo Santillan, which was GRANTED.

The current Motions to be Relieved as Counsel as to Defendants La Michoacana Premium De Maywood, Inc., Javier Andrade Barragan, Marco A. Andrade, and Perla Carden were filed on December 7, 2022. No Opposition has been filed.

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:

            Attorney Isaiah Artest and the Lew Firm, APC move to be relieved as counsel as Defendants La Michoacana Premium De Maywood, Inc., Javier Andrade Barragan, Marco A. Andrade, and Perla Carden. Counsel filed four separate motions, but for efficiency, the court will consolidate all four into one motion as they are nearly identical.

The Declarations in Support of Attorneys’ Motion filed for each defendant indicates that each Defendant has substantially failed to fulfill its obligations, and was warned that the Lew Firm would withdraw its services unless said obligation was fulfilled. Moreover, continued representation will result in an “unreasonable financial burden on the Lew Firm APC.”

            Additionally, the Declaration indicates that service was done via email to Jacqueline Nieves, who is Defendants’ representative. (Dec. ¶ 3b.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the motion as well.

            Counsel has provided the required documents under Rules of Court 3.1362.

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 each Defendant.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             January 20, 2023                     __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court