Case Number: SC119848 Hearing Date: March 20, 2018 Dept: 92

MARYLEE SPRIGGS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: SC119848

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 20, 2018

Plaintiff, Marylee Spriggs filed this action against Defendant, City of Los Angeles for damages arising out of a trip and fall on a city sidewalk. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to add claims for premises liability and negligence against Domino Realty Management Co., Inc., the entity that owned the adjacent property. Domino filed an answer to the complaint and simultaneously filed a cross-complaint against its sole tenant on the property, Veolia Energy Los Angeles, Inc. The cross-complaint contains three causes of action for indemnification and a cause of action for declaratory relief.

On 5/11/17, the attorney for the City of Los Angeles filed a Request for Dismissal, with prejudice of the “complaint” and “entire action of all parties and all causes of action.” The Request for Dismissal was signed by Plaintiff’s attorney, but was not signed by Cross-Complainant’s attorney. The Clerk processed the dismissal despite the lack of signature, and the entire action was dismissed.

On 12/28/17, the Court granted a motion by Defendant, Domino Realty Management Company, to correct the dismissal, nunc pro tunc, because the box saying “entire action” was checked inadvertently, and Domino’s attorney did not sign the request for dismissal, as required. When the Court granted the motion, it set trial on the cross-complaint for 3/21/18; notably, that date does not appear in the Court’s online calendar.

At this time, Domino’s attorney seeks an order relieving her as counsel of record for Domino. The hearing, however, is set for hearing the day before the trial in this matter. 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.

Because trial in this matter is set for 3/21/18, and this motion to be relieved as counsel is being heard on 3/20/18, the Court finds the motion is set for hearing at the penultimate moment, and must be denied.