Case Number: BC502424    Hearing Date: September 09, 2014    Dept: 32

CASE NAME: Sarah Baughn v. Bikram Choudhury, et al.
CASE NO.: BC502424
HEARING DATE: 09/09/14
DEPARTMENT: 32
CALENDAR NO.: 14
SUBJECT: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Bikram Choudhury
MOVING PARTY: Counsel Diana Spielberger / Law Offices of Diana Spielberger
RESP. PARTY: None

COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Bikram Choudhury – the court will permit moving counsel to explain the reasons for withdrawal in camera and will rule on the motion based on this in camera hearing.

ANALYSIS

In a declaration, Counsel states that the grounds for the motion are those permitted under Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(c). She requests an in camera hearing if the court requires further explanation.

The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a MC-052 Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil, stating generally and within the confines of attorney-client privilege, why Counsel did not file a consent. (CRC 3.1362(c).) The court may grant a request for an in camera hearing to discuss confidential information or privileged matters. (See Manifredi & Levine v. Sup.Ct. (Barles) (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1134 [holding that an attorney’s claim of “unsolicited and confidential information” insufficiently describes the general nature of the conflict].)

Counsel’s moving declaration is insufficient for the court to find good cause for withdrawal. The court grants the request for an in camera hearing and will permit Counsel to elaborate further on the basis for the motion to withdraw at such hearing.