Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV29233, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29233    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     April 17, 2024                        TRIAL DATE:  May 6, 2024

CASE:                         Seed Textile, Inc. v. J & Dong Fashion, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV29233

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               John A. Axtell, Marh & Associates

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On February 20, 2024, John A. Axtell, counsel for Defendant J & Dong Fashion, Inc. (“Defendant”), filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  

The Motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) 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) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). 

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)  

III.       DISCUSSION 

John A. Axtell seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant for the following reasons: “Client is styled in this case as defendant.  Without waiving attorney-client privilege, under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, withdrawal is mandatory because continued representation by counsel would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules governing conflicts of interest, Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7.  In this case Defendant’s counsel represents all three defendants, J & Dong Fashion, Inc., John huh, and Hee Yeon Dong.  John Huh and Hee Yong Dong are now divorced and Hee Yeon Dong has made a decision to withdraw her consent to be jointly represented with J & Dong Fashion, Inc. and John Huh.  John Huh has consented to counsel withdrawing and will sign a substitution of attorney.  J & Dong Fashion, Inc. has also consented to counsel withdrawing but is not in a position to retain new counsel at present and cannot appear pro per, hence, Counsel is making this motion.”  (Form MC-052.)   

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) 

Upon review, the court finds the Motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.   

IV.       CONCLUSION        

            Accordingly, the unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED and effective upon the filing of the proofs of service of this signed order upon Defendants.¿ 

The court sets a Status Conference re: Status of Counsel for Defendant J & Dong Fashion, Inc. for June 6, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.   

            Defense Counsel to give notice.  

Dated:   April 17, 2024