Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 21PSCV00646, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

This is a wage and hour violations lawsuit. On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs Nenyin Tan and Jianhua Li (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against J&J Freight Solutions, LLC (“J&J Freight”), Golden J Group, Inc. (“Golden J Group”), Jiemei Huang aka Jamie Huang (“Huang”), Qinyi Yu (“Yu”), Barrett Business Services, Inc. (“BBS”), Gary E. Kramer (“Kramer”), James Potts (“Potts”), Anthony Harris (“Harris”) and Does 1-10 for:

1. Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, Minimum Wage, and/or Overtime in Violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 515, 558, 558.1, and 1194

2. Failure to Provide Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks in Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512

3. Failure to Pay Waiting Time Penalties in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203

4. Failure to Produce Personnel and Payroll Records in Violation of Labor Code §§ 226(c), 432 and 1198.5

On September 2, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed Harris, Kramer, Potts and BBS without prejudice.

The Final Status Conference is set for February 20, 2024. Trial is set for March 5, 2024.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Huang, Golden J Group, Yu and J&J Freight (together, “Clients”).

At the outset, the court notes that there is no indication that Clients were given notice of the rescheduled November 8, 2023 hearing date [see footnote #1]. Accordingly, the following analysis is contingent upon Firm providing the court with proof, at or before the time of the hearing, that such notice was provided.

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.)

California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

Attorney Greg S. Labate (“Labate”) represents that “irreconcilable differences have arisen between Defendant and counsel. Such difference[s] have resulted in the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. [Clients] w[ere] advised to seek new representation, but substitute counsel has not yet been engaged.” Labate requests that, in the event the court desires further information, the court conduct an in camera hearing outside of the presence of all other parties. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4^th 1128, 1136-1137).

Labate represents that he has served Clients by mail at Clients’ last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, via email correspondence.

Clients, in turn, oppose the motion, dispute that there is any conflict and requests an in camera hearing.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the court will conduct an in camera hearing between Clients and counsel for Firm.

The Firm and Clients are ordered to be present in the event that Clients seek an in camera hearing.

[1] Motions #1-#4 were filed (and served via mail and email) on September 18, 2023; Motions #1 and #3 were originally set for hearing on October 25, 2023 and Motions #2 and #4 were originally set for hearing on October 12, 2023. On September 19, 2023, moving counsel filed (and served via mail and email) a “Notice of Rescheduled Hearing on Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Defendant Golden J Group” and a “Notice of Rescheduled Hearing on Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Defendant J&J Freight Solutions, LLC,” advising therein that the hearing on Motions #2 and #4 had been rescheduled to October 30, 2023; the proof of service accompanying same reflected notice to the Clients.

On September 20, 2023, a “Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order” was filed, wherein the October 25, 2023 scheduled hearing date on Motions #1 and #3 were rescheduled to October 30, 2023; notice was given to counsel (but not to the Clients). On October 4, 2023, another “Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order” was filed, wherein the October 30, 2023 scheduled hearing date on Motions #1-#4 was rescheduled to November 8, 2023; notice was given to counsel (but again, not to the Clients). Based on the foregoing, there is no indication that the Clients were given notice of the rescheduled November 8, 2023 hearing date, aside from the fact that November 8, 2023 was listed as the hearing date on counsel’s reply filed October 23, 2023 (i.e., which was served on Clients).