Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01229995, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Chris Wellman’s and Wellman & Warren, LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Pacific Plastering Co. is taken OFF CALENDAR as moot.

Chris Wellman’s and Wellman & Warren, LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Jason Joseph Lowe is taken OFF CALENDAR as moot.

The Court SETS a hearing on an Order to Show Cause re: Striking the Answer for Failure to Retain Counsel on October 26, 2023 at 8:30 am in Department N15.

Chris Wellman and Wellman & Warren, LLP are ORDERED to give notice of this ruling and give notice of the hearing on the order to show cause to all parties by mail.

Chris Wellman and Wellman & Warren, LLP move to relieved as counsel for Defendants Pacific Plastering Co. (Defendant Pacific) and Jason Joseph Lowe (Defendant Lowe).

On February 7, 2023, Defendant Lowe filed a Substitution of Attorney form indicating that Defendant Lowe would now be representing himself. (See ROA #80.) On March 22, 2023, Defendant Pacific filed a Substitution of Attorney form indicating that Defendant Pacific would now be representing itself. (ROA #82.)

As a result of the filing of the Substitutions of Counsel forms, Chris Wellman and Wellman & Warren, LLP are no longer counsel of record for Defendant Pacific and Defendant Lowe. Thus, the motions to be relieved as counsel are moot.

However, Defendant Pacific appears to be a corporation, limited liability company, or other artificial legal entity that cannot represent itself and must retain counsel to act on its behalf in court. (See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284 n.5; Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1318.)

While the ban on self-represented artificial legal entities does not prevent Chris Wellman and Wellman & Warren, LLP from being relieved as counsel, it does place pressure on Defendant Pacific to obtain new counsel or risk forfeiting important rights through non-representation, such as dismissal of the action or having a default entered. (See Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 1318; Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504.)

It is therefore incumbent upon the court and former counsel to advise the representatives of Defendant Pacific of the necessity of obtaining representation or to ensure that the representatives are aware of the need. (See Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 1318.) The court therefore will set an order to show cause re: striking the answer for failure to retain counsel and order that Chris Wellman and Wellman & Warren, LLP give notice of this ruling and give notice of the hearing on an order to show cause.

The court clerk also shall give notice of this ruling.