Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV14462, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14462 Hearing Date: March 27, 2025 Dept: 14
Case Background
This is an action for violations of the labor code,
conversion, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges that while he was
working for Defendants as a construction worker, he was not paid and was then
wrongfully terminated.
On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff Juan Pablo Ramirez Martinez
filed his Complaint against Defendant Minako America Corporation.
On September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment
naming Refaat Mina as a Defendant in this action.
On March 6, 2025, Renee Noy, Counsel for Defendants,
filed these motions to be relieved as counsel.
Instant Pleading
Counsel for Defendants moves to be relieved as counsel
for Defendants Refaat Mina and Minako America Corporation (Minako).
Decision
Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel are GRANTED,
effective upon the filing of the
proof of service of the signed order upon the client.
The Court sets an Status Conference Re: Status of
Defendant’s legal representation for ____.
Legal Standard
California Rules of Court Rule
3.1362 requires that counsel fill out forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. These
forms serve two basic functions: (1) ensuring that notice is given to the
client and (2) providing the court with an adequate explanation of why the
matter is being handled via motion rather than mutual consent. See Code of
Civil Procedure § 284; California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362.
Discussion
Counsel completed the required forms. Those forms
indicate that Counsel served Defendants at their last known addresses which she
confirmed was current via mail return receipt requested, at least 30 days
before the hearing on this matter. Additionally, Counsel made reasonable
efforts to further confirm the addresses were current. Counsel alleges there
has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
Counsel complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1362,
and relief is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. The motion is
GRANTED, effective upon the filing of
the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to this motion stating
he has been unable to depose Defendant Mina and inquiring whether Defendants’
Answer will be stricken. The response does not address anything relevant to the
motion to be relieved as counsel. The parties’ discovery disputes and
Plaintiff’s concerns with Minako’s lack of legal representation must be
addressed in properly noticed motions. The Court will not consider the
response.
The Court does, however,
note that Defendant Minako is a corporate entity. “[A] corporation, unlike a
natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria
persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or
other employee who is not an attorney.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of
San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145; see also Merco Constr.
Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727 (“the
Legislature cannot constitutionally vest in a person not licensed to practice
law the right to appear in a court of record on behalf of another person,
including a corporate entity”).
Here, there is no specific
statutory deadline for Defendant Minako to obtain new counsel and there is no
law that a corporate Defendant’s Answer is automatically stricken after its
counsel is relieved. Nevertheless, Defendant cannot proceed in this matter
without legal representation. The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Status of
Defendant’s legal representation for May 2, 2025.
Conclusion
Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel are
GRANTED, effective upon the filing of
the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.