Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00216, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV00216 Hearing Date: March 7, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: March
7, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: SAMANTHA DANG v.
DANIEL KLEIN; KEVIN BONN; MOLLY FAULKNER; RX INNOVATIONS, LLC dba KB ADVISORS;
CANNECO CALIFORNIA LLC; and DOES 1-10.
CASE NO.: 21GDCV00216
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Lawrence H. Golkin (“Golkin”)
RESPONDING PARTY: No
response filed.
SERVICE: Filed January 25, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Lawrence H. Golkin, counsel for Defendant Cannaco California, LLC, moves
to be relieved as counsel.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Samantha Dang’s (“Plaintiff”) claim
that she was fraudulently induced to make an investment in a cannabis
investment scheme. Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2018, she entered into a
contract with Defendant Daniel Klein (“Klein”), a co-owner of Defendant RX
Innovations, LLC dba KB Advisors (“KB”), where she invested $329,206 in
exchange for 35% of net profit for certain cannabis cultivation crops. Plaintiff
alleges she never received the promised profits from the agreement, any
documentation, photos, or inspection of the venture, or any reimbursement.
Plaintiff filed this complaint on
February 16, 2021, against Klein, Kevin Bonn (“Bonn”), Molly Faulkner (“Faulkner”),
KB, and Canneco California LLC (“Canneco”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging
six causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) conversion, (3) breach of fiduciary
duty, (4) negligence, (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section
17200, and (6) accounting.
TENTATIVE RULING
Golkin’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. Golkin is ordered to submit a declaration or
affirmatively inform the court at the hearing that Canneco understands that as
corporations they cannot proceed in pro per status.
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
Golkin provides that he is seeking to withdraw from this case because
Canneco is a suspended corporation, and it is unlikely that the corporation
will be revived. He also provides that the client was served at the last known
address, which was confirmed by checking the California Secretary of State’s
website.
CONCLUSION
Golkin’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. Golkin is ordered to submit a declaration or
affirmatively inform the court at the hearing that Canneco understands that as
corporations they cannot proceed in pro per status.
Dated: March 7, 2023 ___________________________________
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. alhdeptx@lacourt.org