Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 22PSCV00498, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00498, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00498 Hearing Date: November 7, 2023 Dept: K

Counsel for Defendant Junqin Liu’s (i.e., Ecoff Campaign Tilles & Kay, LLP) 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 at the Client’s last known address.

Background

Plaintiff Lee & Lee, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff owns the property located at 929-937 Radecki Court, City of Industry, California, 91748 (“subject property”). On or about July 3, 2018, Plaintiff, as landlord, rented the subject property to IFC, as tenant, via a written lease agreement (“Lease”). Jungin Liu signed the Lease on IFC’s behalf and also executed a guaranty. IFC was subsequently evicted in an unlawful detainer action.

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Jungin Liu and

Does 1-50 for:

1. Breach of Written Guaranty

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein the name of “Jungin Liu” was corrected to “Junqin Liu.”

The Final Status Conference is set for March 5, 2024. Trial is set for March 19, 2024.

Discussion

Ecoff Campaign Tilles & Kay, LLP (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Junqin Liu (“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 Lawrence Ecoff (“Ecoff”) represents as follows: “There has been a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel is unable to communicate with client, who has become unresponsive to counsel and has not responded to any communications from counsel's office. The client has breached the terms of the attorney-fee agreement by failing to honor the payment obligation under the fee agreement. Counsel has made repeated requests that the client honor the terms of the fee agreement, but the client has failed to comply. . .”

Ecoff states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s 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, as follows: “Counsel conducted a search on Lexis Nexis Public Records, and obtained a SmartLinx Person Report for the client. The SmartLinx Person Report confirmed a current address of 19351 Legacy Place, Rowland Heights, CA 91748 for the client. Counsel was able to confirm that the ‘Junqin Liu’ identified in the SmartLinx Person Report is the client because the SmartLinx Person Report lists Business Connections, which counsel knows are associated with the client.” Ecoff has attached a copy of relevant portions of the SmartLinx Person Report as Exhibit “A.”

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 at the Client’s last known address.