Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: JCCP5111, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: JCCP5111    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 9

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 9

On April 10, 2025, Alexander L. Conti, Esq. (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for cross-defendant Chartwell Staffing Services, 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.  

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 California Secretary of State, Statement of Information for Client. 

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 Statement of Information 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.  If Client filed its Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State more than 30 days before Counsel filed the instant motion – which is most likely the case – then the address on the Statement of Information is not current enough for purposes of the instant motion.

Further, Counsel does not assert that he confirmed that the address is current by all the traditional means of “mail, return receipt requested,” “telephone,” and “conversation” on Form MC-052.  Moreover, at the Status Conference on May 22, 2025, one of Plaintiff’s Counsel (Michael Nourmand, Esq.) represented orally in Court that mail sent to Client’s address listed in the address on Client’s Statement of Information has been returned as undeliverable.  Thus, all the evidence before the Court indicates that the Client’s address set forth on the instant application to be relieved is not 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 practical 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 all 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, 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 his 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, Counsel fails to identify the reason for his request to be relieved.  Rather, Counsel states only that the facts giving rise to this motion are confidential and need to be kept confidential.  Counsel requests an in-camera hearing outside the presence of all other parties to demonstrate good cause for this withdrawal.  Because no cause – let alone good cause – has been provided by Counsel for the withdrawal, it would be an abuse of discretion for the Court to grant the instant motion.  In any subsequent request for withdrawal, Counsel is reminded that while Counsel should maintain the confidentiality of communications between Client and Counsel, Counsel can provide general reasons such as a lack of communication, irreconcilable differences, a breakdown of the attorney client relationship, Client’s failure to pay overdue incurred fees or other breach of the retainer agreement, etc. without violating said confidentiality. 

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 items 7(a), 8 and 9(b).  The proposed order must also include the following additional language for Item 13: “A corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before this Court. Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc. is ordered to file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of service of this signed order and to appear on ____________, 2025 at 10:00 am in Department 9 with its new counsel.  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 (“111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, Los Angeles, CA 90012”).

As to defendant Chartwell Staffing Services, 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, if the Court grants a subsequent motion be relieved as counsel, the Court will require that Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc. timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of service of the signed order (MC-053).

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

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order on all parties, including Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc., and file proof of service of such within 3 days.

DATED: May 27, 2025                                              ___________________________

                                                                              Elaine Lu

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court