Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2022-01265388, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
The motion to be relieved as counsel for Globecore Corp. is GRANTED.
The court ORDERS that counsel for Globecore Corp. submit a proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (Form MC-053) to the court within 10 days of this ruling.
The court ORDERS that, within 30 days of receiving the signed Form MC-053 from the court, counsel for Globecore Corp. shall serve Globecore Corp. with the signed Form MC-053, Notice of the Order to Show Cause hearing set forth below, and notice of this ruling, in the manner described in Rules of Court Rule 3.1362(c).
Counsel shall be relieved as counsel of record for Globecore Corp. effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing timely service of the Judicial Council Form MC-053 and Notice of the Order to Show Cause hearing.
The Court SETS a hearing on an Order to Show Cause re: Entering Default for Failure of Artificial Legal Entity to Retain Counsel on 03/16/2023 at 8:30 am in Department N15.
H. Michael Song and Song & Back, Attorneys at Law, move to relieved as counsel for Globecore Corp.
“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination . . . [u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)
The notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Civil Procedure Code section 284 shall be directed to the client and shall be made on the Judicial Council’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil form (Form MC-051). (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362, subd. (a).) No memorandum is required for the motion, (see Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362, subd. (b)), but the motion shall be accompanied by a declaration stating in general terms, without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship, why counsel is making a motion instead of filing a consent, (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362, subd. (c)).
If the motion is served by mail, it shall be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing either that (1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or (2) the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to filing the motion. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362, subd. (d).)
The motion may be brought on various grounds, some of which include the client’s failure to pay attorney fees, (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406); the client’s insistence on an action that is not justified under existing law or by good faith argument, (Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1015); and a conflict of interest between counsel and the client, (Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592).
The court has discretion to deny a motion to be relieved as counsel where discharging counsel would result in “undue prejudice to the client’s interests, ” (Ramirez vs. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915), or “an unreasonable disruption of the orderly processes of justice,” (People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975, 979). The court may also deny an attorney’s request to withdraw “where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding”. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) However, such discretion is to be exercised reasonably. (Ibid.)
In this case, the court finds that counsel for Globecore Corp. has complied with the requirements of the California Rules of Court, including serving the client at the client’s last known address. Counsel also has declared a justifiable reason to be relieved as counsel — the failure of the client to comply with counsel’s instructions and a breach of the retainer agreement leading to the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
Here, the matter is set a jury trial on 09/25/2023. Given that trial will not commence for more than 9 months, Globecore Corp. will have ample time to find new counsel. Further, no opposition has been filed establishing prejudice to Globecore Corp. or any other party. Therefore, the court finds that no undue prejudice will result from the court’s granting of the motion to be relieved as counsel.
However, Globecore Corp. is an 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 the court from granting the motion to withdraw, it does place pressure on Globecore Corp. to obtain new counsel or risk forfeiting important rights through non-representation, such as dismissal of the action or having a default entered. (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 to advise the representatives of Globecore Corp. of the necessity of obtaining representation or to ensure that the representatives are aware of the need. (Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 1318.) The court therefore will order that counsel for Globecore Corp. give notice of this ruling, serve Globecore Corp. with the order relieving counsel, and give notice of a hearing on an order to show cause re: entering default for failure to retain counsel.
Counsel for Globecore Corp. shall give notice of this ruling.