Case Number: BC645137 Hearing Date: April 04, 2018 Dept: 47

Christine Castillo v. La Canada Unified School District

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Attorney Alex Alarcon, counsel for Plaintiff Christine Castillo

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Christine Castillo (through specially appearing counsel)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that she suffered sex discrimination as a result of notifying her employer that she was pregnant a month after she was hired to be principal of La Canada Elementary School.

Attorney Alex Alarcon moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Christine Castillo.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court will conduct an in camera conference with moving attorney Alex Alarcon and his client, Plaintiff Christine Castillo to determine whether sufficient cause exists to permit attorney Alarcon to withdraw as counsel.

DISCUSSION:

Motions To Be Relieved As Counsel

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 requires that the following Mandatory Judicial Council forms be filed for a motion to be relieved as counsel: Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel–Civil (form MC-051); Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel–Civil (form MC-052); and Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel–Civil (form MC-053). See CRC Rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e). These three forms must be served on must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. Rule 3.1362(d).

The Court may issue an order allowing an attorney to withdraw from representation, after notice to the client. CCP § 284(2). An attorney may withdraw with or without cause as long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the client’s interest – i.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation because that would prejudice client, but can withdraw otherwise. Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915. The court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where such withdraw would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding; but the court’s discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably. Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1.

Attorney represents that a conflict of interest between counsel and Plaintiff exists necessitating withdrawal. Declaration, ¶ 2. However, Plaintiff client states that attorney Alarcon has not told her the reason for the proposed withdrawal.

Trial is set to begin on September 18, 2018, which gives Plaintiff Castillo a reasonable amount of time to retain new counsel, (which she is not required to do in this case, since she is suing in her individual capacity, and as such, may represent herself in pro per).

However, the Court will conduct an in camera conference with moving attorney Alex Alarcon and his client, Plaintiff Christine Castillo to determine whether sufficient cause exists to permit attorney Alarcon to withdraw as counsel.

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

Dated: April 4, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court