Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV33999, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 21STCV33999 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to be
Relieved as Counsel
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s
Counsel Steven P. Chang and Shioda Langley & Chang, LLP
Resp. Party: None
The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On September 14,
2021, Plaintiff King Fang filed his Complaint against Defendant Qingxian Li on
causes of action arising from their alleged business transaction regarding real
property.
On September 16,
2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Pendency of Action [Lis Pendens] on the real
property, located at 2103 Cathryn Drive, Rosemead, California 91770.
On October
29, 2021, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Qingxian Li filed: (1) her Answer to the
Complaint; and (2) her Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants King Fang,
Hueqing He, Xiaoqing Wang, Cindy Loi, Lily Liu, and Huojian Cao.
On February
15, 2022, Cross-Defendant Cindy Loi filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On February
15, 2022, Cross-Defendant Lily Liu filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On June 20,
2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant King Fang filed an Answer to the
Cross-Complaint.
On March 28,
2023, Cross-Defendant Hueqing He filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On April 17,
2023, the Court dismissed with prejudice Cross-Defendant Huojian Cao from the
Cross-Complaint.
On April 28,
2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Counsel (Steven P. Chang and Shioda Langley
& Chang, LLP) filed: (1) MC-051, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”);
(2) MC-052, Declaration; and (3) MC-053, Proposed Order.
On May 5,
2023, Cross-Defendant Xiaoqing Wang filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On May 8,
2023, the Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent
Defendant/Cross-Complainant from selling the real property.
No
opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal Standard
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.)
II.
Discussion
Counsels’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel complies with all of the
requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, in that Counsel
provided notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel; proposed order
granting attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel; and declaration in
support of the motion to be relieved as counsel.
The declaration states “[t]he attorney-client relationship between LI
and counsel has completely broken down such that counsel cannot proceed with
representation of LI.” (Decl., Item 2.) The declaration further declares that
the client has been served by mail at her last known address, which was
confirmed within the past 30 days by conversation. (Decl., Items 3.a.(2) and
3.b.(1)(c).)
The risk of prejudice to
Defendant/Cross-Complainant is very high in this situation. Trial is less than
one month away from the date of the hearing on the Motion, and no motion for a
continuance of trial is pending before the Court. This time before trial is
likely insufficient for Defendant/Cross-Complainant to either obtain new counsel
that could competently represent her or for Defendant/Cross-Complainant to
adequately prepare to represent herself. The explanation provided is
insufficient to justify the very high level of prejudice against
Defendant/Cross-Complainant here
The Court DENIES the Motion to
be Relieved as Counsel.
III. Conclusion
The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED.