Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV27179, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 22STCV27179    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Stephen A. Madoni (“Madoni”)

Madoni seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Dolly Hwang and Guochang International, Inc. (“GII”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Madoni’s motions to be relieved as counsel (collectively, the “Motions”) are compliant with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  The Motions are unopposed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

DISCUSSION

The court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) 

In support of the Motions, Madoni declares there has been a breach of Defendants’ retainer agreement and a material breakdown in communication.  The Court finds this to be an adequate basis for withdrawal.  For this reason and because they are unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motions.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  As a business entity, GII must be represented by counsel.  (See Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)  The Court will hold an OSC regarding Pilot’s representation on September 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in this department.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

         Dated this 30th day of August 2023