Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21PSCV00679, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00679    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Bi Yueh Chou v. AMM Construction, et al. 

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel 

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Bi Yueh Chou is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will hear from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding these issues. 

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. On August 23, 2021, plaintiff Bi Yueh Chou (Plaintiff) filed this action. On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against defendants AMM Restoration & Construction, Inc., Edward Gonzalez, Alicia Rodriguez (Rodriguez), Donald Duffy, Jr., Inland Empire Claim Consultants, Inc., and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, accounting, conversion, violation of Penal Code § 496(a), elder abuse, and unjust enrichment. 

On December 27, 2023, Michael I. Kim of CKB Vienna LLP, counsel for Plaintiff, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.)

A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION

Michael I. Kim of CKB Vienna LLP (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel contends a conflict has arisen between Counsel and Plaintiff which has led to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Kim Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal. 

Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation include the client’s conduct that “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.]” (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is also grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) 

Counsel filed the appropriate Judicial Council forms, namely forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) Counsel also filed a proof of electronic service. (Proof of Service (12/27/23).) 

However, the Court finds Counsel’s efforts to confirm Plaintiff’s current address or last known address to be insufficient. Counsel simply indicates that counsel confirmed the address is current by email, and also served the motion and declaration by email. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b).) Counsel’s declaration does not indicate that Plaintiff’s electronic service address is current. (See Id.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(2).) It is also unclear whether Counsel is referring to Plaintiff’s physical address or electronic address given statements in the declaration and proof of electronic service. (See Kim Decl., ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1); Proof of Service (12/27/23).) Counsel also does not indicate having served the other parties in this action, (see Id.), and the proposed order (Form MC-053) does not contain the current pending hearing dates, which was ordered by the Court on 1/17/24. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

The motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Bi Yueh Chou is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will hear from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding these issues.

      Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling  and file proof of service of same within five calendar days of this order.