Case Number: BC655894 Hearing Date: April 05, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

IGOR RADYUK, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

OMRI PELED, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC655894

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

April 5, 2019

Plaintiff, Tim Kent’s attorney of record, Steven Daneshgar moves to be relieved as counsel for Kent only (Co-Plaintiff, Igor Radyuk, is represented by Marshall C. Sanders, not by Steven Daneshgar). Counsel contends there has been a breakdown in communication that prohibits further representation. Counsel declares he served the moving papers on Client at an address that has been confirmed by conversation.

The motion is denied because it is set to be heard unreasonably close to the trial date. The trial date in the case is 4/16/19, and the FSC was scheduled for 3/28/19, prior to the hearing on this motion.

Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3-700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken. The fact the client or matter proves unpleasant or unprofitable does not excuse attorney performance. The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.

An attorney, either with the client’s consent or the court’s approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests. A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case. CRPC 3 700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 197.

Additionally, while not as imperative, the Court notes that Counsel filed proof of service of the moving papers on Client and Defendant, but not on Co-Plaintiff, Radyuk. All parties to the action are entitled to proper service of all moving papers. CCP §1014.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.