Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV05101, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05101    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   August 28, 2023                                 

CASE NAME:           David Holden vs. Ultimate Host, LLC

CASE NO.:                23STCV05101

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Defendant’s Counsel

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of August 23, 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 March 8, 2023, Plaintiff David Holden (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Ultimate Host, LLC (“Defendant.”) The complaint alleges two cause of action: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Fraud. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant to book a vacation rental for a stay in Los Angeles. Plaintiff’s executed a lease agreement for $123,220 for a week. When the parties arrived at the location, the property was unfinished and not fit for habitation. After Plaintiff was relocated to another, which was also uninhabitabled, the Plaintiff was relocated to a hotel. Plaintiff requested a full refund, and Defendant has paid $40,000. However, Plaintiff has not been paid the remaining $83,200.

On May 12, 2023, Defendant Ultimate Host, LLC, filed a Demurrer.

On June 16, 2023, Defendant’s Counsel filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. No Opposition has been filed as of August 23, 2023.

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 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 Sagar Parikh moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Ultimate Host, LLC.

In the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, counsel indicates that there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b). Additionally, counsel moves to withdraw for nonpayment of legal fees and costs.

Counsel has provided all the required documents under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362. The Proofs of Service filed concurrently indicates both Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant was served via email as well as by mail.

However, “the rule is clear in this state that, with the sole exception of small claims court, a corporation cannot act in propria persona in a California state court.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) However, the court went on to say the following:

The first is the principle supported by Merco that a corporation may not proceed in propria persona. The second is that an attorney, given proper grounds, may be permitted by the court to withdraw as attorney of record. (Code Civ.Proc., s 284.) These two concepts are not inconsistent in the case of a corporate client. An attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation.

(Id. at 504.)

Since there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, the Court may allow withdrawal since the corporate client is uncooperative. Moreover, there are no upcoming motions calendared and a trial date has not been assigned. Therefore, it is unlikely that Plaintiff will suffer prejudice.

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

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 Defendant.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             August 28, 2023                      _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court