Case Number: BC504301 Hearing Date: May 23, 2014 Dept: 34

Moving Party: David J. Duchrow, Law Office of David J. Duchrow (“Counsel”)

Resp. Party: Plaintiff Joseph Zeccola (“plaintiff”)

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff commenced this action on 3/29/13 against defendants for: (1) sexual harassment (FEHA); (2) sex discrimination (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 8); (3) sex discrimination (FEHA); (4) retaliation (FEHA); and (5) failure to prevent harassment (FEHA). No other motions have been filed in this action.

ANALYSIS:

An attorney moving to be relieved as counsel under California Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must meet the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. To comply with rule 3.1362, the moving party must submit the following forms: (1) Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; and (3) Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The moving party must serve the aforementioned forms on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Further, when the client is served by mail, the attorney’s declaration must show that the client’s address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Ibid.)

Here, Counsel submits the mandatory forms. The forms contain proof of service on plaintiff and defense counsel.

The attorney in an action may be relieved at any time before or after judgment or final determination either upon consent of both client and attorney, or upon order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.) A motion to be relieved as counsel under Code Civ. Proc., section 284, subd. (2) must comply with the requirements set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Specifically, the accompanying declaration “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c).)

Under California Rules of Professional Conduct, 3-700(C), “[i]f rule 3 700(B) [mandatory withdrawal] is not applicable, a member may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters, unless such request or such withdrawal is because: (1) The client . . . (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or . . . (f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.”

Even if all of the requirements are met, “the court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.” (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)

Counsel fails to provide any information as to the reason for the withdrawal request. Instead, Counsel declares that withdrawal is mandatory under rule 3-700(c) and that Counsel will submit a more detailed declaration in camera under seal.

Though plaintiff opposes the motion, there is no showing that granting this motion will result in prejudice. Plaintiff’s opposition merely makes assertions without providing any evidence in support. Plaintiff also requests that the motion be heard in camera.

In short, neither party has presented any evidence to the Court; both parties request that the Court hear the case in camera.

Therefore, the Court reserves its ruling on the motion pending an in camera review of the reasons for and against the request for withdrawal.