Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00806, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00806    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: K

Counsel for Plaintiff Weng Bo’s (i.e., Putterman Law, APC) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client.

Background   

Plaintiff Weng Bo (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Prior to June 2, 2016, Xiaowei Hong (“William”) approached Plaintiff for a $1 million loan to purchase inventory and equipment for Fullerton Cabinet Inc. (“FCI”) and KB Depot Inc. (“KBDI”). On or about June 2, 2016, Plaintiff loaned $1 million to FCI through William in a representative capacity for FCI, with 0.85% monthly interest. William executed a Promissory Note on behalf of FCI for said loan. Between June 2, 2016 and January 29, 2021, William only repaid a portion of the loan. On May 1, 2017, William filed a certificate of dissolution of FCI, representing therein that all company debts and liabilities had been actually paid or provided for as far as company assets permitted. Prior to January 29, 2021, William approached Plaintiff for additional funds needed to purchase inventory for KBDI. On January 29, 2021, William made and executed a “Guaranty for Stock Ownership” in a representative capacity for KBDI, wherein Plaintiff would provide funds to William to purchase inventory for KBDI in return for 51% shares of KBDI until repayment of the debt was confirmed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff provided these funds but was not repaid or given the 51% shares.

On September 8, 2022, the court dismissed K&B Depot Inc., Shu Hong and New Sun without prejudice, per Plaintiff’s counsel’s oral request.

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed KB Home Depot Inc., without prejudice.

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), asserting causes of action against William, KBDI, FCI and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Declaratory Relief

2.                  Declaratory Relief

3.                  Breach of Written Contract

4.                  Breach of Written Contract

5.                  Money Had and Received

6.                  Breach of Fiduciary Duties

7.                  Accounting

8.                  Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

On March 7, 2023, the court sustained William’s, KBDI’s and FCI’s demurrer to the first and second causes of action in the TAC, without leave to amend.

On April 3, 2023, William, KBDI and FCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Bo and Roes 1-10 for:

1.                  Fraud

2.                  Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

A Case Management Conference is set for November 27, 2023.

Discussion

Putterman Law, APC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff (“Client”).

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 Matt Putterman (“Putterman”) represents that the “Client has breached the retainer agreement with this firm by failing to pay amounts owed when due. . .” He further represents that he sent an email to Client on July 17, 2023, requesting that Client execute a substitution of attorney form and return same no later than July 19, 2023, but that Client has not complied as of the July 21, 2023 motion filing date.  Putterman states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with this declaration and that he has confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current, via conversation.

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client.