Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: KC070199, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: KC070199 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: K
Counsel for Plaintiff Yutao Jiang’s (i.e.,
Tung & Associates, APLC) 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
Case No. KC070199
Plaintiffs Fengjun Chen, Yong Gao, Long He, Zhiming Shu, Yutao Jiang and Weigong Shang (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Plaintiffs worked for All Access
Express, Inc. (“AAE”) as truck drivers. AAE violated wage and hour laws, discriminated
against Plaintiffs based on their age, created a hostile work environment and
attempted to enforce an unlawful non-compete agreement.
On January 28, 2020, the court related and consolidated this instant case with Case No. 19PSCV00584; this instant case was designated the lead case.
On February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Gels Logistics Inc. (“GLI”) was substituted in lieu of Doe 1.
On July 16,
2020, Plaintiffs filed three “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Juan Xu was substituted in
lieu of Doe 2, Tian Long (“Long”) was substituted in lieu of Doe 3, and Mr.
Jin was substituted
in lieu of Doe 4.
On July 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Tian Lu was substituted in lieu of Doe 5 and Xun Jin was substituted in lieu of Doe 6.
On July 23,
2020, Plaintiffs filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Lin Wang
(“Lin”) was substituted
in lieu of Doe 7 and Ling Wang was substituted in lieu of Doe 8.
On February 3, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel orally dismissed Lin, without prejudice. On February 16, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed Mr. Jin, Lin and Long, without prejudice.
On March 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Xun Jing was substituted in lieu of Doe 9.
On June 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against AAE and Does 1-10 for:
1.
Age Discrimination
2.
Hostile Work Environment
3.
Unlawful Business Practice (Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200)
4.
Failure to Pay Overtime (Labor Code Sections 510, 1194,
1198)
5.
Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
6.
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
7.
Failure to Pay Wages When Due (Labor Code Sections 201,
203)
On November 30, 2021, AAE’s default was entered.
On May 8, 2023, GLI’s default was entered.
The Final Status Conference is set for February 22, 2024. Trial is set for February 27, 2024.
Case No. 19PSCV00584
Plaintiffs Yutao Jiang and Weigong Shang (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: See above.
On June 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against AAE and Does 1-10 for:
1.
Age Discrimination
2.
Hostile Work Environment
3.
Unlawful Business Practice (Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200)
4.
Failure to Pay Overtime (Labor Code Sections 510, 1194,
1198)
5.
Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
6.
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
7.
Failure to Pay Wages When Due (Labor Code Sections 201,
203)
On January 28, 2020, the court related and consolidated this instant case with Case No. KC070199; Case No. KC070199 was designated the lead case.
Discussion
Tung & Associates, APLC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Yutao Jiang (“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 Ashton Watkins (“Watkins”) represents that Client became dissatisfied with counsel and terminated his relationship with Firm in April 2023. Client personally appeared at the April 18, 2023 hearing and spoke for himself with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. The court noted, at that time, that Client “may represent himself or retain new counsel if not satisfied with current counsel.” (Exh. A). Watkins represents that Client is still dissatisfied with counsel but has failed to sign a substitution of attorney form or retain new counsel. Watkins represents that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that Firm can no longer represent Client in this action.
Watkins states that he has served Client by mail at Client’s last known address with copies of the motions served with this declaration and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, namely by having his legal assistant confirm same during this time frame, as well as confirm Client’s email and telephone number.
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.