The People of the State of California v. National CPR Foundation, LLC, et al
The People of the State of California v. National CPR Foundation, LLC, et al
Case Number
24CV05905
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
(1) Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel For National CPR Foundation, LLC (2) Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel For Michael Angelo Paladino
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff The People of the State of California: John T. Savrnoch, Christopher B. Dalbey, Office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney, Michael A. Hestrin, Office of the Riverside County District Attorney
For Defendants National CPR Foundation LLC and Michael Angelo Paladino: Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Liana W. Chen, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP
RULING
(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant National CPR Foundation LLC, is granted.
(2) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Michael Paladino is granted.
(3) The effective dates of the court’s orders relieving counsel shall be delayed until proof of effective and valid service of each of the signed orders on National CPR Foundation LLC, and Michael Paladino have been filed with the court.
(4) Counsel for defendants shall serve a copy of the signed orders on all parties that have appeared in this action.
Background
On October 22, 2024, plaintiff The People of the State of California (the People) filed a complaint against defendants National CPR Foundation LLC (the Foundation) and Michael Angelo Paladino (Paladino), individually and as the managing member of the Foundation, alleging six causes of action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17500, and eleven cause of action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
The causes of action alleged in the complaint arise from the alleged operation of an online, computer-based certification program for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or “CPR” by the Foundation and Paladino, who is the sole managing member of the Foundation (collectively, defendants). In the complaint, the People allege that, since June 17, 2019, defendants operated the online program in a manner that falsely and misleadingly represents to California consumers that the program, among other things, adheres to or meets guidelines or standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the American Heart Association, is accredited, and is accepted by all employers who require employees to be CPR certified. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-9 & 33-48.)
On November 21, 2024, defendants filed a notice of removal of the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Court records reflect that on February 6, 2025, the district court entered an order remanding the action.
On February 19, 2025, the Foundation filed a verified application (the pro hac vice application) of attorney Galen K. Cheney (Cheney) for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice for the Foundation.
On March 17, 2025, defendants filed a verified answer to the complaint, responding to its allegations and asserting twenty-eight affirmative defenses. In the answer Paladino purports to represent himself and the Foundation. (Mar. 17, 2025, Answer at p. 1, ll. 1-7.)
On April 1, 2024, counsel for defendants separately filed motions for orders permitting counsel to be relieved as attorneys of record in this action for defendants (individually and collectively, the motion or motions to be relieved as counsel).
On April 7, 2025, the Foundation and Cheney filed a notice of withdrawal of the pro hac vice application.
On April 18, 2025, defendants filed an amended answer to the complaint, responding to its allegations and asserting twenty-three affirmative defenses, and separately filed a request for judicial notice in support of the amended answer. In the amended answer and supporting request for judicial notice, Paladino purports to “temporarily” represent himself and the Foundation. (See Apr. 21, 2025, Amended Answer at p. 1, ll. 5-7.)
On April 21, 2025, defendants filed an amended request for judicial notice in support of their amended answer, and separately filed various documents which defendants describe or identify as exhibits A through Q to that amended request.
The motions to be relieved as counsel:
The separately filed motions to be relieved as counsel are each accompanied by separate declarations which include a summary provided by attorney Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Rosenfeld). The summaries appear in attachment 2 to each of the separately filed declarations. As the summary contained in each of the declarations submitted by counsel, and the declarations themselves, include identical or nearly identical information, the court will refer collectively to these summaries and declarations.
In the summaries, attorney Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Rosenfeld) states that he, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, Liana W. Chen, and Galen W. Cheney have represented defendants since this lawsuit was filed. (Decl., Attachment 2 [Summary] at pdf p. 3.) Rosenfeld further states that on April 1, 2025, his office served defendants with the motions to be relieved as counsel by first-class mail, postage prepaid, and by email, to the following mail and email addresses: 6090 S. Fort Apache Road, Suite 110, Las Vegas, NV 89148; work@michaelpaladino.me. (Ibid.) Rosenfeld asserts that on March 27, 2025, Paladino confirmed that that each of these mail and email addresses are current, valid, and correct for both defendants. (Ibid.)
Rosenfeld explains that, after the action was remanded to this court, defendants instructed Kronenberger Rosenfeld to file a demurrer to the People’s complaint. (Decl., Attachment 2 at pdf p. 3.) After reviewing the demurrer drafted by Kronenberger Rosenfeld, defendants instructed counsel not to file it. (Ibid.) Kronenberger Rosenfeld did not file the demurrer, and instead drafted an answer to the complaint which defendants were not satisfied with. (Ibid.) Defendants prepared their own version of an answer to the complaint with affirmative defenses which Kronenberger Rosenfeld did not feel comfortable filing due to factual and legal contentions made in that document. (Ibid.)
Kronenberger Rosenfeld sought to convince defendants to allow it to file the answer and affirmative defenses it had prepared, but defendants refused. (Decl., Attachment 2 at pdf p. 3.) Defendants insisted on filing their version of the answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint, even when warned of the possibility that the clerk would reject the filing, and of the risk and seriousness of default. (Ibid.) A week before defendants’ answer to the complaint was due, Kronenberger Rosenfeld explained to defendants that they had reached an impasse, recommended that defendants engage new counsel as quickly as possible, and, on multiple occasions, reminded defendants of the importance of engaging new counsel immediately. (Ibid.) Despite Kronenberger Rosenfeld’s persistence, defendants have not engaged new counsel. (Id. at pdf pp. 3-4.)
Rosenfeld asserts that defendants have insisted that Kronenberger Rosenfeld file pleadings that Kronenberger Rosenfeld believes it cannot file without risking a violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b), and have instructed Kronenberger Rosenfeld to take no action in response to the People’s complaint despite the risk of default, which Kronenberger Rosenfeld believes is contrary to defendants’ best interests and exposes defendants to adverse legal consequences. (Decl., Attachment 2 at pdf p. 4.) According to Rosenfeld, these circumstances have created an irreconcilable conflict between Kronenberger Rosenfeld and defendants, making it impossible for Kronenberger Rosenfeld to continue representing defendants in this action effectively and in accordance with their ethical obligations. (Ibid.)
Court records reflect that defendants have not filed oppositions to the separately filed motions to be relieved as counsel.
Analysis
“The attorney in an action … may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination … [¶] [u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2).)
A motion to be relieved as counsel made under subdivision (2) of Code of Civil Procedure section 284 “must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (form MC-051).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), original italics.) (Note: Undesignated rule references shall be to the California Rules of Court unless otherwise indicated.) Though the motion need not include a memorandum, it must be accompanied by a declaration made “on the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (form MC-052)[]” and must “state 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).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(b) & (c), original italics.)
The notice, motion, declaration, and a proposed order must be served on the client and all parties who have appeared in the action, either by personal service, electronic service, or mail. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Relevant under the circumstances present here, if notice of the motion is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts which show either “[t]he service address is the current residence or business address of the client” or “[t]he service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1)(A)-(B).)
In addition, “[i]f the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2).) The term “current” for purposes of rule 3.1362 means that “the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2).)
The proposed order must be prepared on the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053)”, lodged with the moving papers, and must “specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)
“The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133 (Manfredi).)
Each of the unopposed motions to be relieved as counsel are made on the required mandatory form. The motions are also each accompanied by a separate declaration which are made on the required mandatory form. The court has reviewed these declarations, and finds that they sufficiently state why the motions to be relieved as counsel are brought under subdivision (2) of Code of Civil Procedure section 284. Information appearing in these declarations also does not appear to compromise the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship.
Court records reflect that counsel for defendants have lodged with each of the motions to be relieved as counsel, separate proposed orders which are prepared on the required mandatory form. The proposed orders set forth the date of the hearing on the motions to be relieved as counsel, which is the only hearing date presently scheduled in this matter.
Information appearing in the proofs of service accompanying each of the motions to be relieved as counsel show that the notices of these motions, the declarations, and the proposed orders described above were each served on defendants by mail on April 1, 2025, at the address reflected in the answer, amended answer, request for judicial notice, amended request for judicial notice, and exhibits to the amended request for judicial notice separately filed by defendants on, respectively, March 17, April 18, and April 21, 2025, and further described above. (See Apr. 1, 2025, Proofs of Service, ¶¶ 4, 5(a) & (b), 6(b)(2).)
Rule 3.1362(d) also authorizes service of the notices, motions to be relieved as counsel, declarations, and proposed orders by electronic means. Though the proofs of service described above do not state that the motions to be relieved as counsel were electronically served on defendants, Rosenthal states that each of the documents described above were also emailed to defendants. Information appearing in the declarations accompanying each of the motions to be relieved as counsel shows that the service address reflected in the proofs of service and the email address identified by Rosenthal were confirmed by Paladino within 30 days before the motions to be relieved as counsel were filed, as further detailed above.
For all reasons discussed above, the motions to be relieved as counsel are procedurally compliant. Further, Rosenthal has disclosed and described the general basis for the request to be relieved as defendants’ counsel. Based on the information provided by counsel, and the lack of opposition to the motion, the court is satisfied that sufficient justification exists for relieving defendants’ counsel in this matter. (See Manfredi, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134.)
There is also no information to show that counsel’s withdrawal will prejudice any party to this action or cause undue delay, also considering that there is presently no trial date scheduled in this matter. Further, the court is satisfied that counsel has presented sufficient facts demonstrating effective and proper service of the motions to be relieved as counsel on each of the defendants. Therefore, and for all reasons further discussed above, the court will grant each of the motions to be relieved as counsel.
The court has reviewed each of the proposed orders submitted by defendants’ counsel on April 1, 2025, and intends to sign them. The court will direct defendants’ counsel to serve a copy of the signed orders on defendants and all parties who have appeared in this action. Further, the court will direct that the effective date of the orders relieving counsel be delayed until appropriate proofs of effective service of the signed orders on the Foundation and Paladino have been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)