HODGSON, et al. vs HSU, M.D., et al.

25CV028596: HODGSON, et al. vs HSU, M.D., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Ketrin Hodgson (“Client”) is OPPOSED and GRANTED.

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2), California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC- 051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship regarding why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel — Civil form (MC- 052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel — Civil form (MC-053)). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

Counsel has filed the required, mandatory Judicial Council forms, including a declaration indicating that Counsel and Client have had a “complete breakdown of communication and understanding.” (Declaration of Bradley I. Kramer, at line 2.)

Client has filed an omnibus motion “special opposition” to this motion to be relieved as counsel and to Counsel’s concurrently filed motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Estate of Benjamin Hodgson by and through its successor in interest, Ketrin Hodgson, (the “Estate”). Client argues “[t]his Special Opposition is brought on the mandatory ground that this action includes survival claims belonging to the Estate of Benjamin T. Hodgson. While Plaintiff may appear in propria persona on her individual wrongful-death claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60, a non-attorney fiduciary may not represent an estate in propria persona on survival claims under section 377.30 in civil litigation against third parties.” (Special Opposition at 1:28-2:2.)

Client further argues that “[a]n unconditional withdrawal order would place the Estate in an unlawful unauthorized-practice-of-law posture and cause the precise material adverse prejudice prohibited by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 and Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 1.16(d) and 1.16(e).” (Id., at 2:17-19.)

Client also contends that “[t]he contemporaneous record (Exhibit 2) demonstrates continued communication after these motions were filed, failing to establish statutory good cause. There is

25CV028596: HODGSON, et al. vs HSU, M.D., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16C

critical unfinished foundational work after full payment, limited-scope agreements that are unsigned by counsel and bear incorrect dates, unilateral actions taken without client consultation, and an incomplete forensic report as of August 8, 2026.” (Id., at 2:20-23.) Finally, Client argues that she “has made diligent efforts to locate substitute counsel; multiple firms declined after reviewing the matter in its present incomplete condition.” (Id., at 3:4-5.) Accordingly, Client argues that the Court should deny this motion, or, grant the motion only upon a number of “non-severable conditions,” including that Counsel produce the complete, unredacted Electronic Health Record for Benjamin T. Hodgson, “ensure that counsel file a competent forensic report is finalized and delivered,” and stay all proceedings, discovery deadlines, and hearing or trial dates for 90 days. (Id., at 4:25-5:25.)

No reply or objection to Ms. Ketrin’s omnibus opposition has been filed with the Court.

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’” (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].) The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

In this matter, there are no pending motions and trial has not yet been scheduled. Plaintiff’s fiveyear deadline to bring the matter to trial does not expire until late 2030.

It is true that “[n]o person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125.) The law is further clear that a non-attorney cannot appear in propria persona to represent the interest of an estate. (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621; see also Estate of Sanchez (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 331, 340.) However, while Client has presented evidence that a number of firms have declined to represent her and/or the Estate this matter, Client has not presented evidence that she will be unable to obtain another attorney to represent her and/or the Estate.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Client fails to explain how the Estate will be prejudiced by Counsel’s withdrawal. Furthermore, it is clear from the filings that a substantial breakdown in trust has occurred between Client and Counsel. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion to be relieved.

The Court DENIES the Client’s alternative request to condition Counsel’s withdrawal on any “non-severable conditions.” To the extent that Client expresses a concern that Counsel will not provide her full litigation file upon withdrawal, Plaintiff provides no basis for this concern. A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV028596: HODGSON, et al. vs HSU, M.D., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16C

licensed attorney has the ethical duty to “promptly release to the client, all client materials and property” upon termination of the representation and request from the client. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 16(e)(1); see Rose v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 646, 655 [“[T]here can be no doubt that the balance of an attorney's litigation file is the property of the client and must be surrendered promptly upon request to the client or the client's new counsel once the representation has terminated.”].) Plaintiff’s concerns are speculative. The Court will not presume without specific factual support that an attorney will fail to fulfill ethical duties.

Disposition

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Client’s request to condition counsel’s withdrawal is DENIED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to notify Defendant's counsel and its client immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in the event Defendant's counsel or Plaintiff appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV028596: HODGSON, et al. vs HSU, M.D., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16C

argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.