Matthew Coulter vs. Mark Olsen et al

Legal Standard

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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.

A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e). The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d).

Analysis and Conclusion

Attorney Workman represents Plaintiffs Julie Swan and Allan Sword. Workman moves to be relieved as counsel, citing irreconcilable differences between Counsel and Plaintiffs. No opposition has been filed.

Workman has filed Judicial Council Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Workman seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal. See Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014 (a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw).

The Court notes within the past 30 days, Plaintiff's address was confirmed to be current by counsel through: (1) mail, return receipt requested; (2) Plaintiffs have provided the address in discovery responses as a current address in another matter Counsel’s firm represents Plaintiffs; and (3) Plaintiff has been served electronically. The trial date is set for November 18, 2026, and the next Court appearance is the Mandatory Settlement Conference set for August 17, 2026, which should be sufficient time for Plaintiffs to retain new counsel.

However, counsel has not served all parties in this action, namely Defendants, as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d). Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. Moving party shall give notice and provide a proof of service of such.

7. CU0001584 Matthew Coulter vs. Mark Olsen et al

Plaintiff Matthew Coulter’s unopposed motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff is to file his Third Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the hearing date on the motion, April 27, 2026.

Legal Standard

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any 10

party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).

“Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.” Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire &. Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32. “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial ... this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown.” Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

A motion to amend a pleading must include (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and (2) a statement of what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a). These changes should identify by page, paragraph, and line number where the allegations added/removed are located.

The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to (1) the effect of the amendment, (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper, (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and (4) why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).

In ruling on a motion for leave to amend a pleading, the court does not consider the merits of the proposed amendment, because “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048. While the trial court may deny a motion for leave to amend on grounds that, e.g., the party seeking the amendment has caused unreasonable delay in doing so, it probably abuses its discretion if it denies any such motion in the absence of a finding of prejudice to the opposing side. See Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545.

Analysis

The Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated the granting on the instant motion is warranted.

Plaintiff attaches his Third Amended Complaint to motion as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a). Dwyer Decl., Ex.

1. The proposed Third Amended Complaint is red-lined to show where the allegations added/removed are located. Id. Plaintiff states the factual allegations in the Complaint which are proposed to be added. Dwyer Decl., ¶ 3. Plaintiff also states the claim and damages which have been amended. Dwyer Decl., ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff explains the purpose of the amendments is to add factual allegations, a claim under the Bane Act, and amend his damages claims to broaden his claim for emotional distress. Dwyer Decl., ¶¶ 3-5. Plaintiff’s counsel declares the proposed changes could not have been made earlier because they are largely based on discovery which occurred in December 2025. Dwyer Decl., ¶¶ 3-4. The need for amendment to the damages claim was identified because of discovery disputes between the 11