RUFINO ESPERON VS EXCELA CREATIVE, LLC, ET AL.,

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128329    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: P

Rufino Esperon v. Excela Creative, LLC et al. Case No. SC128329

Defense Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing Date January 14, 2020 UNOPPOSED

TENTATIVE RULING

Caitlin Sanders, Esq. moves to be relieved as counsel for defendants Excela Creative, LLC, Dexter Hutchison, and Ashely Ranger. This motion is not opposed.

The notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order are on the appropriate Judicial Council forms and addressed to the client. CRC, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e). The declaration indicates defendants were served by mail, and counsel confirmed defendants’ address by email.

The “determination of 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, 1133-1134 (quoting Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592). Situations where courts deny a motion to withdraw as counsel generally involve a request by counsel that is too close to trial or situations where the attorney does not properly explain the basis for the request to withdraw. E.g. People v. Brown (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1341.

Jury trial is scheduled for March 2, 2020. It is unlikely defendants would be able to retain counsel before trial. Counsel argues the motion should be granted because “there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that continued representation is not possible.” Given the possible prejudice to defendants, the court requires more specificity before the motion can be granted. The court does note defendants do not oppose the motion. Counsel will be given an opportunity to appear in camera outside the presence of the other parties to explain the facts establishing good cause for withdrawal.