Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 21NWCV00378, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00378, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00378 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: C

Ju Eog Choi vs Heseon Park, et al.

Case No.: 21NWCV00378

Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 at 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Frederick W. Lee’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Frederick W. Lee moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Ju Eog Choi and Jae Hoon Park.

Good cause exists to grant the motion based on any of the grounds under Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C). Rule 3-700(c) provides that an attorney may withdraw based on any of the following: (1) The client (a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or (b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or (c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or (e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees. (2) The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or (3) the inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; or (4) The member's mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively; or (5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or (6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.

The attorney declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The clients were served by mail at their last known addresses, which were confirmed to be current within the past 30 days.

The Court notes that California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053) be filed. Counsel has not filed a proposed order and therefore must submit a proposed order prior.

However, on October 2, 2023, after the September 25, 2023 filing of the instant motion, Plaintiffs filed a substitution of attorney.

Accordingly, the motion to be relieved as Counsel is MOOT, given that counsel has been substituted prior to this hearing.