Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV27220, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27220    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Counsel James R. Rosen and John Godsil, Rosen Saba, LLP (“Counsel”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

             This action arises out of an attorney-client relationship. Plaintiffs Shino Jin, Jianhua Jin, Morgan Holding Group, Inc. and Lancer Solution Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sue Willenken, LLP, Jason H. Wilson and Does 1-20, inclusive, (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to an October 17, 2024 complaint (“Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) legal malpractice; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) violation of Business and Professions Code § 6068; and (4) declaratory relief.

            On March 7, 2025, Counsel filed motions to be relieved as counsel for each of the four Plaintiffs in this matter (the “Motions”). The Motions are unopposed.

DISCUSSION

            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 CRC, rule 3.1362.¿ The motion must be made using mandatory forms:¿ 

¿ 

1. Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel directed to the client (MC-051);¿ 

2. Declaration “stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” the reasons that the motion was brought (MC-052);¿and 

3. Proposed Order (MC-053).¿ 

¿ 

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 the client was served is their “current residence or business address” 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.)   

Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Motion (MC-052) and Proposed Order (MC-053) for each of the Plaintiffs in this action. As reason for the Motions, Counsel states: “There has been a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship due to irreconcilable differences, the details of which are subject to the attorney-client privilege.” (All MC-052, ¶ 2.) The forms were served via mail on the client and all other parties who have appeared in this matter on March 7, 2025. (All POS.) Counsel confirmed via conversation in the last 30 days that the client’s address is current. (All MC-052, ¶ 3(b)(1)(c).) Finally, there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings as trial in this action is not yet set. Thus, the Court finds that the Motions set forth an adequate basis for withdrawal. 

Counsel James R. Rosen and John Godsil’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for Shino Jin, Jianhua Jin, Morgan Holding Group, Inc. and Lancer Solution Corp. are GRANTED. Because Morgan Holding Group, Inc. and Lancer Solution Corp. are corporations, they cannot represent themselves in this case. The Court therefore sets an Order to Show Cause re Representation for June 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM to discuss Morgan Holding Group, Inc. and Lancer Solution Corp.’s retention of counsel.

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 13th day of May 2025