Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCP1971, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling


            All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the  matter off calendar.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 23STCP1971    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

HENG LI, et al., 

 

         vs.

 

FMB DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al.

 Case No.:  23STCP01971

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  June 3, 2024

 

Respondent FMB Consulting LLC’s counsel, Lenden F. Webb’s, Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

 

On June 5, 2023, Petitioners Heng Li, Jie Li, and Ning Jiang (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed their operative Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Respondents FMB Development, LLC (“Development”) and FMB Consulting LLC (“Consulting”) (collectively, “Respondents”).  On March 12, 2024, this Court granted Petitioners’ petition.  On March 27, 2024, this Court entered Judgment for Petitioners against Respondents.

On April 25, 2024, Consulting’s counsel, Lenden F. Webb, filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

Trial is not set in this matter.

 

Legal Standard

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating 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) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

 

Discussion

Counsel has submitted completed MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 forms. Counsel has provided a declaration stating a there is a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.  (See Decl. of Lenden.)  Counsel has indicated that Consulting was served with copies of the motion papers filed with the declaration at Consulting’s last known address and has confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current by conducting a TLO background check and emailing the clients at all known email addresses.  (See Decl. of Lenden ¶3.)

 

Conclusion

Consulting’s counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

Counsel will be relieved upon filing proof of service on their client of the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council form MC-053).

Moving Party to give notice.

 

Dated:  June _____, 2024

                                                                            

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court