Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV11095, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11095    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 9

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 9

On April 28, 2025, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Stewart, P.C. (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for cross-defendant Martinez Ontime Parcel, Inc. (“Client”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.  

Counsel states that the Client is unable to abide by the attorney-client representation agreement making the instant motion to be relieved necessary.

The MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by checking the Clients most recent filings with the California Secretary of State.

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that Counsel confirm Client’s address “within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.”  Rule 3.1362 further provides that if notice is served by mail, “it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: [¶] (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or [¶] (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.”  (Id. at (d).)

Merely checking the Client’s most recent filings with the California Secretary of State is insufficient to confirm that the address is current within 30 days of filing this motion.  There is no indication as to when the Client’s Statement of Information was filed with the California Secretary of State.  Further, Counsel does not assert that he confirmed that the address is current by the traditional means of “mail, return receipt requested,” “telephone,” or “conversation” on Form MC-052.  Thus, it is unclear whether the Client’s address set forth on the instant application to be relieved is a current address. 

Rule 3.1362’s requirement that Client’s address be confirmed as current within 30 days of Counsel’s motion to be relieved is not a mere technicality without a purpose.  If the Court grants Counsel’s motion to be relieved without requiring a current, working address for Client, neither the Court nor the other parties will have the ability to serve Client with pleadings, motions, and orders, which implicate due process concerns.

Because Counsel has failed to confirm within 30 days of the motion that Client’s address is current, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is denied without prejudice.  Before renewing this motion to be relieved, Counsel must make diligent and reasonable efforts to obtain a current address for Client by a combination of the following means: mailing the motion papers to Client’s last known address, return receipt requested; calling Client’s last known telephone numbers; contacting persons familiar with Client; and conducting searches via Lexis, a private investigator, and/or other means.  If after making these reasonable and diligent efforts, Counsel is still unable to locate a current address for Client, Counsel may renew the motion to be relieved by filing new moving papers, and properly completing item 3(b)(2) of Form MC-052 to identify all diligent and reasonable efforts made to attempt to locate a current address for Client.

In addition, the proposed order on form MC-053 is incomplete.  The proposed order on form MC-053 must include the Court’s full address in item 8.  The Court’s records show the following upcoming hearings, which must all be listed in the new and revised proposed order (MC-053):

-       In item 7 (next scheduled hearing): “Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration, June 18, 2025, at 2:00 PM, Department 9 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

-       In item 8 (additional hearings): “Status Conference, June 18, 2025, at 2:00 PM, Department 9 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.”

-       Additional language for Item 13: “A corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before this Court. Martinez Ontime Parcel, Inc. is ordered to file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of service of this signed order and to appear on July 21, 2025 at 10:00 am in Department 9 with its new counsel.  Martinez Ontime Parcel, Inc.’s failure to timely retain new counsel or failure to appear on July 21, 2025 may result in the answer being stricken, the entry of default and default judgment against Martinez Ontime Parcel, Inc.  Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of this signed order on all parties within 3 days.”

Counsel is responsible for determining if there are any other hearings scheduled or due dates for discovery for this case, including any motions hearings, which must all be listed in the proposed order.  For each hearing, Counsel must state the date, time, and location of the hearing (“Department 9 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012”). For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent.

As to defendant Martinez Ontime Parcel, Inc., the Court notes that while a corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, 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 Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)  “[A Corporation] must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.  (Id.; Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564; Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) However, “[a]n attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at 504.)

Thus, should Counsel’s request to be relieved be eventually granted, the Court will require that Martinez Ontime Parcel, Inc. timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of service of the signed order (MC-053) so that new counsel will be prepared for trial by the current trial date. 

For the reasons stated above, Counsel’s request to be relieved is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including Martinez Ontime Parcel, Inc., and file proof of service of such within 3 days.

DATED: June 4, 2025                                                            ___________________________

                                                                              Elaine Lu

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court