New Commune DTLA LLC v. City Council of the City of Redondo Beach, et al.

as part of the trial exhibit exchange five days before the August 18, 2026 Final Status Conference.

Instead, Gite waited to produce these documents on the evening of August 28, 2026--five court days before the trial date--and only after Gite's further deposition and the deposition of Mara's damages experts had been completed.

The MIL is meritorious. LASC Local Rule 3.25 as well as this court's Final Status Conference (FSC) Order require that the parties exchange every trial exhibit and identify each exhibit and objection in the joint list. Gite failed to observe these rules. As a result, Gite's belated document production has deprived Cross-Defendants of evaluating Gite's damages claim. This is precisely the sort of "trial by ambush" tactic that LASC Local Rule 3.25 is designed to thwart. Given the numerous trial continuances and the prejudice to Cross-Defendants, exclusion is warranted.

In opposition, Gite spills much ink attempting to reframe the MIL as improperly seeking a discovery sanction. Gite misses the point. The MIL is based primarily on Gite's failure to list the late produced documents on the Joint Exhibit List and to exchange the documents at the time appointed by the FSC Order and Local Rule 3.25. Gite does not address this argument at all and thus concedes the point.

IV. CONCLUSION

Mara's MIL No. 3 is GRANTED. Dated: September 8, 2026 | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court |

Judge Brock T. Hammond, Department 407 HEARING DATE: September 8, 2026 TRIAL DATE: Not set CASE: New Commune DTLA LLC v. City Council of the City of Redondo Beach, et al. CASE NO.: 23STCV10146 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 22, 2026, Michael W. Shonafelt, counsel for Plaintiff, New Commune DTLA LLC, filed this Motion to be Relieved As Counsel. The motion is unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be 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 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 and declaration 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)).¿¿¿ ¿¿

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.¿ (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)¿¿¿¿

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for the following reasons: "Withdrawal is necessary in this case based on authorized grounds for withdrawal under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 subdivision (b) due to a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. I am unable to provide additional details in a public filing due to my duty to preserve confidentiality and to avoid prejudice to the Plaintiff." (Form MC-052.)

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney's request for withdrawal should be granted.¿ (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)¿¿¿ ¿¿¿

Upon review, the court finds the Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Specifically, Counsel has not completed Item 3 of Form MC-052.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ¿¿ Counsel to give notice. ¿ Dated: September 8, 2026 | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court | Case Number: 24STCV26848 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: 407 Tentative Ruling