Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV02364, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV02364    Hearing Date: August 8, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Qi Zhu v. CA Fan Tuan Inc. 

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant CA Fan Tuan Inc. 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant CA Fan Tuan Inc. without prejudice. 

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

BACKGROUND 

This is an employment dispute. On December 5, 2022, plaintiff Qi Zhu (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant CA Fan Tuan Inc. (Defendant) and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, misclassification of employee as “independent contractor”, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide rest periods, penalties for failure to pay wages due, failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses, failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. 

On July 8, 2024, Richard Liu, Esq. and Edward Wells, Esq. of Innovative Legal Services, P.C. moved to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. 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 

Richard Liu, Esq. and Edward Wells, Esq. of Innovative Legal Services, P.C. (Counsel) seek to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. Counsel contends irreconcilable differences have arisen making it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively. (Wells Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds this 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 has provided the appropriate Judicial Council forms, i.e., forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053, per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a), (c), and (e). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) However, the Court notes various issues with the forms presented. First, Counsel’s declaration does not indicate having confirmed Defendant’s current address or whether Counsel was otherwise unable to confirm Defendant’s current address. (Wells Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b).) Second, Counsel did not complete paragraphs 3 or 5 of the proposed order. (Proposed Order, ¶¶ 3, 5.) Counsel also has not provided a proof of service of the moving papers on Defendant. The proof of service attached to the moving papers only indicates service on counsel for Plaintiff. (Motion, pp. 8-9 of pdf.) The Court further notes that the forms should be filed as separate documents, especially the proposed order, which would be effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant CA Fan Tuan Inc. without prejudice. 

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