Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03815, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03815    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Seasky Logistics, Inc. v. Thunder International Group, Inc. 

Motion of Richard Liu and Edward Wells of Innovative Legal Services, P.C. to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Thunder International Group Inc. 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES the motion of Richard Liu and Edward Wells of Innovative Legal Services, P.C. to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Thunder International group Inc. without prejudice. 

            Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a common counts case. On December 8, 2023, plaintiff Seasky Logistics, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Thunder International Group, Inc. (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10, alleging one cause of action for common counts. 

On December 23, 2024, Richard Liu and Edward Wells of Innovative Legal Services, P.C. moved to be relieved as counsel for Defendant.[1] 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 and Edward Wells of Innovative Legal Services, P.C. (collectively, Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Wells Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court finds this proper grounds for withdrawal. A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation also 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).) 

Counsel has also submitted the application, declaration, and proposed order on Judicial Council forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) 

But, the deadline for service with the five-day mail extension was December 16, 2024, and the deadline for electronic service with the two court day extension was December 18, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B), 1013, subd. (a).) Counsel filed and served this motion on December 23, 2024, so it is therefore untimely. 

Moreover, there are issues with the forms submitted. First, the notice of motion is addressed to Ye Feng and Mingming Wang, not to Defendant. (Notice, p. 1.) Second, Counsel vaguely identifies the “California Secretary of State” as the means by which Counsel confirmed Defendant’s address is current. (Wells Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1).) It is not entirely clearly what this means. The Court infers that Counsel meant they checked the address on file with the California Secretary of State via its website, but that would be insufficient. The methods for confirmation listed in Judicial Council Form MC-052 indicate some sort of affirmative response from the client, such as mail return receipt requested, telephone, or conversation. (See Wells Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1).) Checking the California Secretary of State website or its files would not require an affirmative response from Defendant. Third, Counsel did not provide the information for the upcoming discovery motion hearing on February 26, 2025. (Wells Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; Proposed Order, ¶¶ 7-8.) Fourth, Counsel did not complete paragraphs 3 or 5 of the proposed order. (Proposed Order, ¶¶ 3, 5.) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motion of Richard Liu and Edward Wells of Innovative Legal Services, P.C. to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Thunder International group Inc. without prejudice. 

            Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.