Filed 3/ 3/ 22 Elias v. Jensen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DAVID ELIAS,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SUZANNE JENSEN, as Cotrustee, etc., et al.,

Defendant and Respondent

. G0 60098

(Super. Ct. No. 30

- 2018

- 009 80796 )

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a n order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim R.

Hubbard , Judge. Dismissed. Motion to dismiss appeal. Granted

. Request for

supplemental authorities. Denied.

David Elias, in pro per

. Law Offices of Krishna Gulaya and Krishna Gulaya, in pro per

.

* * *2 David Elias appeals from the trial court’s order granting respondent

Krishna Gulaya’s motion to withdrawal as Elias’s attorney. 1 Gulaya filed a motion to

dismiss the appeal . As explained below, we conclude the trial court’s order is

nonappealable and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

I

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND

Gulaya represented Elias in a probate matter. On November 23, 2020,

Gulaya moved to be relieved as counsel.

At th e hearing on Gulaya’s withdrawal motion , the trial court n oted it had

not seen an opposition . Nevertheless, the court heard Elias’s objections to the withdrawal

motion. Elias acknowledg ed filing recent pleadings on his own, stating he had “demoted

[Gulaya] to co

- counsel.” He also acknowledged filing a complain t against her with the

State Bar. The trial court granted the withdrawal motion, stating: “Sir, we are not going

to force her to continue to represent you when you are filing documents under your own

name, without your attorney’s input at all, and when y ou have filed a complaint against

her with the S tate Bar.”

1 After briefing was completed and the matter set for oral argument, Elias filed a document entitled “Appellant’s Request for Supplemental Authorities.” We deny the request because it fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.254, which provi des: “(a) If a party learns of significant new authority, including new legislation, that was not available in time to be included in the last brief that the party filed or could have filed, the party may inform the Court of Appeal of this authority by l etter.” Rule 8.254 also provides: “(b) . . . No argument or other discussion of the authority is permitted in the letter.” Elias’s supplemental letter cites authority that was available at the time he filed his reply brief, and it includes argument and discussion. We also decline to treat the letter as supplemental briefing because under California Rules of Court, rule 8.200, (a)(4), “No other brief may be filed except with the permission of the presiding justice, unless it qualifies under (b) [suppleme ntal briefing following remand from Supreme Court] or (c)(7) [amicus briefs].”3 II

D ISCUSSION

In general, an order granting an attorney’s motion to withdraw that does not

direct any payment of money or the performance of any act is not appealable

. ( Messih v.

Lee Drug, Inc. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 312, 315 ( Messih ) ; s ee also Conservatorship of

Rich (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1236 [order denying motion to substitute one attorney

for another is not an appealable order]

. ) The order here neither direct ed payment of

mon ey or performance of an act

, nor is listed among the orders made appealable under

Probate Code sections 1300 and 1304. Thus, t he order allowing Gulaya to withdraw is

not appealable.

The order is reviewable “immediately only by way of a petition for

ext raordinary writ.” ( Messih

, supra , 174 Cal.App.3d at p. 315.) We decline to treat the

appeal from the attorney withdrawal order as a petitio n for extraordinary writ because

Elias present s no reason for us to do s o. ( Id. at p. 315, fn. 4; Estate of Weber (1991)

229 Cal.App.3d 22, 25 [“A petition to treat a nonappealable order as a writ should only

be under extraordinary circumstances, ‘“compelling enough to indicate the propriety of a

petition for writ

. . . in the first instance.”’”].) In Elias’s opposition, he argues dismissal

should be denied because Gulaya breached her fiduciary duties to hi m and colluded with

opposing counsel. But if Elias’s allegations against Gulaya are true, the trial court did

not abuse its disc retion when it concluded Elias should not be represented by a conflicted

attorney with whom he has a present disagreement

. ( Manfredi & Levine v. Superior

Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133 [ “ The determination whether to grant or deny a

motion to withd raw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ” ]

. )4 III

D IS POSITION

The appeal is dismissed

. No costs are awarded.

ZELON, J.*

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.

*Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.