Marie S. Landes vs. Mindy S. Basner

34-2020-00289094-CU-FR-GDS: Marie S. Landes vs. Mindy S. Basner 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

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 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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

34-2020-00289094-CU-FR-GDS: Marie S. Landes vs. Mindy S. Basner 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiff forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiff prior to the hearing, moving counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event Plaintiff appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff’s counsel William W. Palmer and Palmer Law Group’s (“Counsel”) motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.[1] Counsel shall submit an amended Order (Judicial Council Form MC-053) including appropriate information in Paragraphs 3, 6, and 9. The Court will sign the amended order, to be effective upon filing proof of service upon the client.

In support of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel declares: “Since undertaking the representation, the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to the point that continued representation is no longer reasonably feasible. Ongoing disagreements have substantially impaired counsel’s ability to provide effective representation.” (Palmer Decl., filed 7/17/26, at ¶ 2)

Plaintiff Marie S. Landes (“Plaintiff”) opposes Counsel’s motion, asking the Court to “deny the motion as premature or continue it for a short, defined transition process.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00289094-CU-FR-GDS: Marie S. Landes vs. Mindy S. Basner 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

(Opp. at p. 2:23–24.) In the alternative, Plaintiff asks “that withdrawal not become effective until objective transition steps have been completed.” (Id. at p. 2:24–26.)

Plaintiff’s request concerns her client files. On July 29, 2026, Plaintiff asked Counsel to provide “my complete existing electronic client file and transition materials.” (Landes Decl., ¶ 19 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s request included, among other things:

• the substantial filing and revision history; • related e-filing and court-processing records; • service and investigation materials; • bankruptcy-related materials already within this representation; • correspondence and case-status materials; • existing inventories or file lists; and • transition information identifying pending matters and known dates or deadlines.

(Opp at pp. 7:27–8:7.) Counsel replied that

We are pleased to provide all of your files and records. If you have retained new counsel and are substituting our firm out, then we can transition the case over to the new firm. If we are required to continue to represent your interests, then we will forward the files and records immediately after the September 2nd hearing date when the Court reviews our motion to be relieved as counsel.

(Landes Decl., Exh. A.)

Plaintiff contends that she needs the requested information “to understand what has been produced, verify the current status of the case, and make an informed transition.” (Opp. at p. 8:9–10.) Further, Plaintiff states a “concern that the complete transition should not begin only after [Counsel] has already been relieved and the Court has lost the practical ability to structure an orderly termination.” (Landes Decl. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff has not retained new counsel. (Id. ¶ 3.)

The Court understands Plaintiff to be concerned that Counsel will not provide her the full litigation file or will not timely produce the litigation file if Counsel withdraws. Plaintiff provides no factual basis for this concern. Counsel has stated that it will “provide all of your files and records” after this hearing. A 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00289094-CU-FR-GDS: Marie S. Landes vs. Mindy S. Basner 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

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 factual support that an attorney will fail to fulfill ethical duties.

To the extent that Plaintiff may contend a delay in providing the client files will cause her undue prejudice in this litigation, the matter is presently stayed as a result of Defendant’s bankruptcy. No hearings beyond the instant matter are scheduled.

It is clear from the filings, however, that a substantial breakdown in trust has occurred between Plaintiff and Counsel.

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion to be relieved, conditioned on Counsel’s submission of an amended order as stated above and effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to condition Counsel’s withdrawal on a defined transition plan.

[1] The Court notes that a Notice of Stay of Proceedings was filed in this case based on

a bankruptcy filing by Defendant. Because the assets of the bankrupt estate are not at issue in this motion and the motion is brought by counsel for Plaintiff, not Defendant, the automatic stay does not extend to stay this motion. (See U.S. v. Dos Cabezas Corp. (9th Cir. 1993) 995 F.2d 1486, 1491 [“Ordinarily, however, unless the assets of the bankrupt estate are at stake, the automatic stay does not extend to actions against parties other than the debtor, such as codebtors and sureties.”].)