ELIZABETH VARGAS v. ANAHIT GHANBARZADEH ET AL.

This matter is on for disbursement of settlement funds following attorney Pius Joseph’s lien on the settlement recovery. Mr. Joseph previously represented Plaintiff Elizabeth Vargas in this action. On September 11, 2023, Mr. Joseph filed a motion to be relieved of counsel based on irreconcilable differences with regards to representation. No further information was provided. On November 8, 2023, the court issued its order granting Mr. Joseph’s motion. The following day, Mr. Joseph filed his lien on all monies recovered in this case. Ms. Vargas subsequently represented herself and obtained a settlement which was, according to her, in excess of prior offers.

An attorney who voluntarily withdraws from a case without justifiable cause is not entitled to recover a subsequent settlement without justifiable cause. The court in Hensel v. Cohen (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 563 framed the inquiry as follows:

May an attorney accept a personal injury case on a contingent fee basis, determine that it is not worth his time to pursue the matter, instruct his client to look elsewhere for legal assistance, but hedge his bet by claiming a part of the recovery if a settlement is made or a judgment obtained through the efforts of a subsequent attorney? We answer this question with a resounding ‘No.’”

(Hensel supra at 564.)

At issue is whether there was justifiable cause for Mr. Joseph to withdraw his representation. An attorney arguing justifiable cause bears the burden of showing that: 1) counsel’s withdrawal was mandatory, not permissive; 2) the overwhelming and primary motivation for counsel’s withdrawal was based on the obligation to adhere to ethical

imperatives under the State Bar or other statutes; 3) counsel commenced the action in good faith; 4) following counsel’s withdrawal, the client obtained a recovery; and 5) counsel demonstrated that his work contributed to the client’s ultimate discovery. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1015.)

Reviewing the docket in this matter, nothing suggests that the withdrawal was mandatory. A withdrawal from a case based on a “breakdown in communications” is generally not deemed to be a mandatory withdrawal. (Rus, Milband & Smith v. Conkle & Olesten (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 656, 675-676).

Mr. Joseph has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to any portion of the settlement funds for attorney’s fees. As to costs, Mr. Joseph provided a declaration in March 13, 2025, averring that he incurred at least $2,100 in costs. The Court will therefore, order that $2,100 in the settlement funds be disbursed to Mr. Joseph with the remainder to be disbursed to Plaintiff Elizabeth Vargas.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for September, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1

Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov