Case Number: BC498246 Hearing Date: May 27, 2014 Dept: 34

Moving Party: Christopher B. Adamson, attorney of record for plaintiffs Danny Peynado and Matthew Young (“Counsel”)

Resp. Party: None

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs commenced this action on 12/28/12 against defendants for: (1) harassment based on sexual orientation; (2) retaliation; and (3) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.

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 plaintiffs and defense counsel.

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 declares that plaintiffs’ conduct has rendered it unreasonably difficult for Counsel to carry out his employment effectively. (Decls., ¶ 2.) Counsel declares that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship which includes plaintiffs’ refusal to follow Counsel’s advice. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs have not cooperated with Counsel regarding discovery responses and have refused on multiple occasions to come to Counsel’s office. (Ibid.) Counsel has not been able to reach plaintiffs by phone since 5/2/14. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs will no longer answer Counsel’s phone calls and are not responsive via text messaging. (Ibid.) Credibility issues have arisen concerning plaintiffs. (Ibid.)

While counsel’s stated reasons would normally be sufficient for the court to grant his motion to be relieved, the Court is concerned that granting the motion would cause undue delay in the proceedings. This case has been pending for over a year and trial is approximately three weeks from the date of the hearing on this motion.

The Court would like to hear from counsel and any other interested parties on this issue at the time of the hearing.