Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00524, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00524    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 31, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         CHIA HUEY LIN, v. CHUNG HUEI LING, WILLY LING; All Persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title thereto; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00524

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Ching K. Chiao, on behalf of Chia & Wu, LLP

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed January 3, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Ching K. Chiao (“Chiao”), on behalf of Chia & Wu, LLP, moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendants Chung Huei Ling and Willy Ling.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Chia Huey Lin’s (“Plaintiff”) quiet title claim for property located at 6400 Trelawney Avenue, Temple City, California 91780. Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 9, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Chiao’s motion to be relieved as counsel is tentatively 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

            Chiao moves to be relieves as counsel of record for Defendants Chung Huei Ling and Willy Ling. Chiao provides that this motion is made pursuant to Rule 1.16(b)(4). Rule 1.16(b)(4) provides that a lawyer may withdraw if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” Chiao does not provide any other details as to what conduct gives rise to this request to be relieved as counsel. At hearing, Chiao is ordered to provide additional details, without violating attorney-client privilege, regarding what lead to this motion.

            Chiao provides that the clients were served at the last known address which was confirmed by the client’s discovery responses.

CONCLUSION

            Chiao’s motion to be relieved as counsel is tentatively 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.

            Moving Party to provide notice

Dated:   January 31, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court