Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00609, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00609    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      August 18, 2022                                  TRIAL DATE:  September 19, 2022

CASE:                         LIDD ENTERPRISES INC., DANNY LAO, BESSIE LAO, individually and as TRUSTEES OF THE DANNY AND BESSIE LAO FAMILY TRUST DATED MAY 5, 2005, v. AUTOBUYLINE SYSTEMS INC., ABS AUTO AUCTIONS, REMARKETIMS, INC., OPENTRADE, INC. CLEARMARKET INC., AUCTIONLANE INC., ABS OPENTRADE INC., KEVIN AZZOUZ, MIKE RHEE, AND LENNARD MENGWALL and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 20GDCV00609

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:              Counsel Zachary D. Schorr (“Schorr”), as the attorney for Defendant Clearmarket Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No response filed.

SERVICE:                             Filed July 21, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Attorney for Defendant Clearmarket Inc, Zachary D. Schorr, moves to be relieved as counsel.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Lidd Enterprises Inc., Danny Lao, and Bessie Lao’s (“Plaintiffs”) breach of contract claim for the lease of property located at 110 E. Holly Street, Pasadena, California 91103. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2021, alleging seven causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) waste, (3) negligence, (4) common count, (5) breach of oral agreement, (6) promissory estoppel, and (7) conversion.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Schorr’s motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §284(1) allows for a change or substitution of attorney “[u]pon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes.” If both parties do not consent to a substitution of attorney, Code of Civ. Proc. §284(2) allows for a substitution “[u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 sets forth procedures for relieving counsel without the mutual consent of both parties.

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362, an attorney seeking to withdraw by motion rather than by consent of the client, as here, is required to make that motion using approved Judicial Council forms. The motion also requires a declaration stating “in general terms, and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1362(c).)  Judicial Council form MC-052, the attorney’s declaration, requires that the client be provided no less than five days’ notice before hearing on the motion.  A proposed order prepared on form MC-053 must also be lodged with the court with the moving papers.

            California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 subd. (d) also requires that the motion, notice of motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice served on the client by mail must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts that show that either the service address is current or “that [t]he 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.” (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 subd. (d)).

The Court of Appeals has recognized, “A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client [citation], or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case.  [Citation.]  We are, however, aware of no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”  Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915.

DISCUSSION

            Schorr provides that there has been an irremediable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship based on his client’s lack of a decision maker. Schorr provides that his client was been served by mail and confirmed by conversation.

CONCLUSION

            Schorr’s motion to be relieved as counsel is granted.  The court will delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until (1) proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client and (2) proof that the client has been properly served with notice of the next trial date have been filed with the court.  Schorr is also directed to submit a declaration or affirmatively inform that court at hearing that Clearmarket Inc understands that as a corporation they cannot proceed in pro per status.

Dated:   August 18, 2022                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.