Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV16443, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16443     Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motions to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs’ Counsel Julie N. Nong

Resp. Party:    None

        Counsel Nong’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

        On April 29, 2020, Plaintiffs Thee Aguila Inc. and Henry Aguila filed their Complaint against Defendants ERDM, Inc., Santiago Acuna, Edgar Fragoso, Eva Meneses, Century Law Group LLP, and Karen Larson on causes of action of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

        On September 29, 2022, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Julie N. Nong, filed her Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Thee Aguila Inc. and her Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Henry Aguila. For each of the Motions, Counsel Nong concurrently filed: (1) Proposed Order; (2) Declaration in support of the Motion; and (3) Proof of Service.

        On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff Henry Aguila filed his Substitution of Attorney, noting that he is now representing himself in propria persona.

ANALYSIS:

An attorney moving to be relieved as counsel under California Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must meet the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. To comply with rule 3.1362, the moving party must submit the following forms: (1) Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; and (3) Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The moving party must serve the aforementioned forms on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Further, when the client is served by mail, the attorney's declaration must show that the client's address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Id.)  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.)

Counsel Nong’s Motions comply with all of the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, in that Counsel provided notice of motions and motions to be relieved as counsel; proposed orders granting attorney’s motions to be relieved as counsel; and declarations in support of the motions to be relieved as counsel. Additionally, the declaration states that Counsel’s client has been served by mail and Counsel confirmed by email with client and verified with the California Secretary of State within the last 30 days that the addresses are current. (See Declarations, No. 3(a)(2) and (b)(1)(b).) Counsel also filed proof of service demonstrating she served all other parties who have appeared in the case.

While there appears to be some risk of prejudice to Plaintiff Thee Aguila, Inc. as corporations cannot prosecute actions in propria persona, the trial court may allow a corporation’s attorney to withdraw from representation, even if that would leave the corporation without representation. (Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504.) “For the uncooperative corporate client who has not been willing to bring in new counsel, granting of the withdrawal motion will put extreme pressure on it to obtain new counsel of record for should it fail to do so it risks forfeiture of its rights through nonrepresentation.” (Id.)

Counsel Nong’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED.