Department 58

Hearing Date: September 1, 2022

Case Name: O.T. v. Hueng Duk Oh et al.

Case No.: 19STCV46864

Matter: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel x2

Moving Party: Counsel for Defendants O Hotel Group, Inc. and Evaspa, Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

Background and procedural history

On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff O.T. sued Defendants Hueng Duk Oh, O Hotel Group, Inc., and Evaspa, Inc. for sexual battery, invasion of privacy, negligence, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and negligent hiring. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Hueng Duk Oh when she visited Defendants’ spa and hotel.

This case was originally filed at the Spring Street Courthouse and on February 23, 2022, was transferred to this Department. Defendants O Hotel Group, Inc. and Evaspa, Inc. have filed an Answer. Counsel for those Defendants, Kevin H. Jang, previously moved to be relieved as counsel on January 26, 2022, but then took the matter off calendar.

On August 1, 2022, Mr. Jang once again moves to be relieved, averring that his clients have not cooperated with him, failed to provide him with material information, and that there are irreconcilable differences.

Discussion

An attorney is entitled to withdraw upon the consent of the client, or without that consent if approved by the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) In the latter case, counsel must make a motion to be relieved as attorney of record. The motion must be made using mandatory forms: Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (MC-051), Declaration (MC-052), and Proposed Order (MC-053). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (b), (e).)

The declaration accompanying the motion to be relieved as counsel 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).)

The notice to the client must be done by personal service, electronically, or mail. If it is done via mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration confirming the service address to be the most current residence or that it is the client’s last known address, and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1)(A)-(B).)

Here, Mr. Jang has complied with the Rules of Court by filing the appropriate forms and provides a supporting declaration stating why he is moving to be relieved as counsel. Notice was provided to O Hotel Group, Inc. and Evaspa, Inc. via mail. Mr. Jang confirmed the address with both clients through conversation.

The next hearing is for a Case Management Conference on September 20, 2022. The Court previously vacated the trial date. Thus, there is a low degree of prejudice to Plaintiff in allowing Counsel to withdraw.

Accordingly, the motion to be relieved as counsel is granted.

The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why the Answers of the business entity defendants (O Hotel Group, Inc. and Evaspa, Inc) should not be stricken and a default entered against them for failure to be represented by counsel for September 20, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 58 of the Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles.