DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24615421·sf·Civil·Motion for Withdrawal of Attorney of Record
Hearing in about 1 hourGRANTED

MICHAEL FERRAN VS. ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION ET AL

Motion for Withdrawal of Attorney of Record

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
301
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMICHAEL FERRAN
DefendantADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION

Attorneys

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24615421 - September 4, 2026 Hearing date: September 4, 2026 Case number: CGC24615421 Case title: MICHAEL FERRAN VS. ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24615421 | Case Title: | | MICHAEL FERRAN VS. ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-04 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for September 4, 2026, line 8. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF MICHAEL FERRAN'S MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD.

The motion of R. Michael Lieberman to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Michael Ferran is granted. There is "no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests." (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Here, judgment was entered on August 10, 2026, and Lieberman has offered to provide assistance to Ferran in filing a timely notice of appeal. Lieberman presents evidence that the attorney-client relationship has broken down. Ferran presents evidence that he is having difficulty securing appellate counsel, but the court is aware of no authority that requires an attorney to continue representation until a client has engaged substitute counsel, particularly where there is a breakdown in the relationship. Ferran does not dispute that his retainer agreement with Lieberman extended only through judgment. (Lieberman Decl., para. 8.) Ferran has not shown undue prejudice.

Ferran requests that the court impose a variety of conditions on this order. The court does not impose the condition but accepts Lieberman's representations as an officer of this court that he will provide the assistance set out in paragraph 9 of his declaration. The court will sign the order on the appropriate Judicial Council form; Lieberman is directed to provide a proposed order forthwith.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share