Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV23742, Date: 2025-02-13 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.

MOVING PARTY: Counsel Bin Li (“Li”) and counsel Mark Hartzler (“Hartzler”)

This action arises from a dispute concerning a license agreement. On September 29, 2023, plaintiff JB Brothers Inc. (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against defendants Kyung Lee aka Chris Jae Lee, Sean Kim, Joshua Son aka Joshua Sohn, Poke Bar Riverside, Inc., Joshua Park, Slamdunk Foods, Inc., Bay Poke Franchise, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract – Riverside; (2) breach of contract – Cerritos; (3) breach of contract – Universal; (4) breach of personal guaranty; (5) conversion; (6) common law infringement; (7) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (8) violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; (9) violation of section 32 of the Lanham Act; and (10) violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200.

On January 21, 2025, both Li and Hartzler filed motions to be relieved as counsel for defendant Poke Bar Riverside, Inc. (the “Motions”). The Motions are unopposed.

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 284 states that “the attorney in an action…may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: (1) upon the consent of both client and attorney…; (2) upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”¿ (CCP § 284; California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 3.1362.)¿ The withdrawal request may be denied if it would cause an injustice or undue delay in proceeding; but the court's discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably.¿ (Mandell v. Superior (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4; Lempert¿v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)¿

In making a motion to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with procedures set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.¿ The motion must be made using mandatory forms:¿

The forms must be timely filed and served on all parties who have appeared in the case.¿ (CRC rule 3.1362.)¿ If these documents are served on the client by mail, there must be a declaration stating either that the address where client was served is “the current residence or business address of the client” or “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.”¿ (CRC rule 3.1362 subd. (d)(1).)¿

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.) Withdrawal is generally permitted unless there is a compelling reason to continue the representation. (Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462.)

Both Li and Hartzler filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Motion (MC-052) and Proposed Order (MC-053). As reason for the Motions, counsel states: “Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule, 3.1362(c), this motion is brought under CCP Section 284(2) instead of filing a consent under Section 284(1) because there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.” (Both MC-052, ¶ 2.) The forms were served on the client and Plaintiff via mail and email on January 21, 2025. (Both Proofs of Service.) Counsel confirmed via mail that the client’s address is current. (Both MC-052, ¶ 3(b)(1).)

The Court notes that trial in this action is currently set for June 23, 2025. In addition, the client, Poke Bar Riverside, Inc., is an entity and cannot represent itself. Thus, unless counsel seeking relief presents evidence in an in camera proceeding as to why they need to be relieved the Court is inclined not to relieve them because of the imminence of trial.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court