Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 21PSCV00845, Date: 2024-02-22 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: 21PSCV00845    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Counsel Alkana’s MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL is GRANTED, effective upon [see below].

Background

This case arises from an oral contract. Plaintiff Jing Li (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff and Zunfeng Zhao[1] made numerous loans to Defendant Xiowei Hong (“Defendant William”) in the amount of $1,207,000.[2] Out of the $1,207,000 loaned, $907,000 was loaned to be used for Defendant’s business expenses, and $300,000 was loaned to buy a house in Irvine. The loans made are as follows:

-        From May 30, 2018 to November 3, 2018, Plaintiff wired Defendant KB Depot $174,000.

-        On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff wired $130,000 to Defendant Zhuang's personal account

-        From March 14, 2019 to December 9, 2019, Plaintiff wired $398,000 to KB Depot 2 Inc, which is controlled by Defendant Hong;

-        From April 9, 2019 to November 19, 2019, Plaintiff 3 wired $ 193,000 to Defendant New Sun International LLC, which is controlled by Defendant Zhuang

-        Finally on or about August 27, 2019, $12,000 was once again wired to Defendant Zhuang's personal account.[3]

To date, Plaintiff has not been repaid. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants have wrongfully profited from and continue[] to profit from the loan made to Defendants William, Mary, and KB Depot. Inc. . . and that Defendants William, Mary, and KP Depot have transferred the loan money to other Defendant companies in order to further perpetrate the fraudulent conduct of Defendant William, Mary, and KB Depot Inc.” (Complaint ¶105.)

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against the following twenty-five (25) Defendants:  XIAO WEI HONG, an individual; KB DEPOT INC, a California corporation; K&B DEPOT INC, a California corporation; FULLERTON CABINET INC., a California corporation; FULLERTON CABINET & STONE INC, a California corporation; HD DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, CORP., a California corporation; KB DEPOT HOME INC., a California corporation; KB DEPOT HOME INC, a California corporation KB DEPOT CABINET & STONE INC, a California corporation; KB CABINET & COUNTERTOP INC, a California corporation; KB CABINETRY WHOLESALER, a business entity of unknown origin; HAIY AN ZHUANG, an individual; SHU HONG, an individual; LANG ZHANG, an individual; ZETAO CHEN, an individual; JIA YI LIANG, an individual; DONG ZHANG, an individual; YAN CHEN, an individual; QIULING MEI, an individual; PREMIUM QUARTZ INC, a California corporation; GZ TRANSPORT INC, a California corporation; YONG's TRUCKING INC., a California corporation; KB HOME CONSTRUCTION INC, a California corporation; KB DEPOT OUTLET INC., a California corporation; NEW SUN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive for:[4]

On November 9, 2021, Defendant Lang Zhang, GZ Transportation Inc., and Yong’s Trucking Inc. filed their Answer.

On December 20, 2021, Defendants filed:

i.                 Defendant Xiaowei Hong filed a Demurrer,

ii.               Defendant Dong Zhang filed a Demurrer,

iii.             Defendants KB Depot Inc. and Fullerton Cabinet Inc. filed a Demurrer,

iv.             Defendant Haiyan Zhuang, Premium Quartz Inc. and KB Home Construction Inc. filed a Demurrer

On January 10, 2022, the court issued the following minute order: “The Court finds that the following cases, 21PSCV00806 and 21PSCV00845, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”

On September 8, 2022, the court sustained the demurrers with 30 days leave to amend. To date, no Amended Complaint appears to have been filed.

On January 31, 2023, the court conducted its hearing regarding Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Plaintiff's Failure to Appear on 9/8/2022; Order to Show Cause Re: Why Court Should Not Impose Terminating Sanctions for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute Case; Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Dismissal of Portions of Plaintiff Jing Li's Complaint with prejudice and stated, in relevant part, the following: “The Court notes Mr. Alkana is new to the case and has been working on the case to the best of his ability, therefore, Order to Show Cause Re: Why Court Should Not Impose Terminating Sanctions for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute Case is DENIED. The Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application for Dismissal of Portions of Plaintiffs Complaint with Prejudice filed by Xiaowei Hong on 01/25/2023 is Granted.”

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed dismissals against answering defendants.

On. January 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

Discussion

Counsel EUGENE S. ALKANA seeks to be relieved as counsel for JING LI because there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and an inability to communicate with the client. According to Counsel, Plaintiff has ample time to obtain replacement counsel.

Here, considering that (1) there are no pending motions on calendar and the next court appearance is for an MSC on 4/18/2024, allowing about two months to retain new counsel, (2) Counsel has filed all the mandatory filings (MC-051, 052, and 053 forms), (3) Counsel has provided all parties with notice of the motion, and (4) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to indicate any prejudice with granting the motion, the court finds good cause to grant the motion.

Therefore, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted, effective upon serving this court’s order relieving Counsel sent to Plaintiff, Defendants, and all other parties who have appeared in the case.