Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 20PSCV00615, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 20PSCV00615    Hearing Date: September 16, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Re: Jay Hooper is GRANTED, effective upon [see below].

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Re: UW International Corp. is GRANTED, effective upon [see below].

(3)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Re: Crown Estate Holdings, LLC is GRANTED, effective upon [see below].

Background

This is an open book account case. Plaintiff Anderco Carpet Co. Inc. (which is in the business of flooring, carpets, titles, woods, turfs and other related services and products) alleges the following against Defendants Jay Hooper; Crown Estate Holding LLC (“Crown”); UW International Corp. (“UW”); Losalini Lutuiwasa; United Liquidators West Coast LLC: Hooper ordered more than $2,000,000 in merchandise from 2017 to 2018, and left $315,539.91 in unpaid invoices. Plaintiff seeks to recover this amount, plus prejudgment interest and lost potential profits from the use of its money, for a total of $418,933.26.

On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit for:

1.     Breach of Contract

2.     Breach of Implied Contract

3.     Open Book Account

4.     Account Stated

5.     Goods and Services Rendered

6.     Quantum Merit

7.     Unjust Enrichment

On November 13, 2020, default was entered against Hooper.

On November 20, 2020, United Liquidators West Coast LLC and Losalini Lutuiwasa were dismissed from the complaint without prejudice.

On December 1, 2020, a clerk’s judgment was entered as to Jay Hooper, UW, and Crown (“Defendants”) for the total amount of $362,410.62.

On February 10, 2021 and April 16, 2021, an abstract of judgment was filed.

On June 1, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to vacate the default judgment and entry of defaults.

On July 12, 2021, the court granted the motion to vacate the default judgment and entry of defaults. That same day, Defendants Hooper, Crown, and UW filed their answer.

On September 22, 2021, the court had its hearing on Plaintiff’s application for a ‘TRO and Appointment of a Receiver or in the Alternative for Asset Freeze’ and Plaintiff’s ‘Motion to Vacate Void Order Dated July 12, 2021.’ According to the court’s tentative ruling (adopted as final), the motion to vacate the order was taken off calendar because the “court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the [] motion inasmuch as it seeks reconsideration of a ruling by a different judgment” and there was no showing of the ruling Judge’s unavailability. (See 9/22/21 Ruling pp. 2-3 of 5 of PDF.) As for the TRO, that was denied because considering Judge White-Brown’s order granting Defendants’ motion to vacate the default and default judgments, “[t]here is no enforceable judgment in this case. Plaintiff’s authorities in reply overlook the fact that Plaintiff is not a judgment creditor at this juncture.” (See 9/22/21 Ruling, p. 4 of 5 of PDF.)

On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney (replacing Counsel Gerges with Counsel Berke).

On May 9, 2023, the appellate court’s opinion (affirming trial court’s ruling to vacate the default/default judgments) was filed.

On November 13, 2023, Defendants filed a substitution of attorney (from pro per to naming James L. Reynolds).[1]

On July 15, 2024, the parties attended a CMC and Status Conference Re: Mediation indicating that “discovery will be completed in early 2025.” (See Minute Order.)

On August 12, 2024, the three instant motions were filed.

Discussion

Counsel Reynolds (substituted in on 11/13/23) seeks to be relieved as counsel because all three clients are in material breach of representation. (See MC-052 form.) According to Counsel’s declaration(s), he has attempted to cure the current situation on several occasion, but Defendants have made no reasonable effort to cure the material breach. Though Counsel has not provided specific details that prevent him from representing Defendants, he need not. (See MC-052 Form, p. 3 of 7 of PDF citing Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 591 [“Whereas here the duty not to reveal confidences prevented counsel from further disclosure and the court accepted the good faith of counsel's representations, the court should find the conflict sufficiently established and permit withdrawal.”].) Should there be any prejudice by granting of the motions, Defendants have not filed an opposition. Additionally, should there be prejudice, it is minimal as there are no pending motions on calendar; the next hearing date is a CMC date set for 1/14/25.

Therefore, as all parties have been served with notice of the motion and there are otherwise no defects (MC-051, 052, and 053 forms have been submitted), the court grants all three motions to be relieved as counsel.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motions are granted effective upon service of motion and the court’s order upon all Plaintiff, Defendants, and all other parties who have appeared.