Glovis America, Inc. v. Red Energy, Inc., et al.

MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR (1) DEFENDANT RED ENERGY, INC., (2) DEFENDANT ROYAL EXPRESS DELIVERY, INC., (3) DEFENDANT SUNOIL RETAIL GROUP, INC., (4) DEFENDANT SMART PLACE, INC., AND (5) DEFENDANT SERGEY VERSHININ

 

MOVING PARTY: Bleau Fox, APLC (counsel for Defendants Red Energy Inc., Royal Express Delivery Inc., Sunoil Retail Group Inc., Smart Place Inc., and Sergey Vershinin)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Glovis America, Inc., brings this action against Defendants Red Energy Inc., Royal Express Delivery Inc., Sunoil Retail Group Inc., Smart Place Inc, and Sergey Vershinin. Plaintiff alleges Vershinin is the shareholder and president of the entities. Plaintiff, a logistics and distribution company, alleges it supplied Defendants with petroleum pursuant to written contracts. Defendants allegedly failed to make payments due. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of personal guaranty, and (3) account stated.

Defendants have Cross-Complained against Plaintiff, alleging Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has engaged in false or deceptive billing practices to charge Defendant/Cross-Complainants for products not actually provided. Cross-Complainants assert claims against Glovis for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) conversion, (6) unfair business practices, and (7) accounting.

The law firm of Bleau Fox, APLC, now moves to be relieved as counsel for all five Defendants/Cross-Complainants. [FN 1}   No oppositions were filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s motion to be Relieved as Counsel for individual Defendant Vershinin is GRANTED.

Counsel’s motion to be Relieved as Counsel for the four entity Defendants is GRANTED on the condition that Counsel submit an Order (Form MC-053) which indicates that the next hearing will be an OSC re; Striking of Answer on 4/12/24 at 8:30 a.m.  IF THE FOUR ENTITY DEFENDANTS DO NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, THEIR ANSWERS MAY BE STRICKEN.

Counsel must submit new and separate orders (MC-053) for each defendant consistent with this ruling.  Box 5a must also be checked.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

A. Legal Standard

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284, subdivision¿(2), California Rules of Court 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 CCP section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP 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, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil form (MC-053)).¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)¿

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.)

B. Analysis

Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052 and MC-053 as to each of the five Defendants. Counsel served the moving papers on the clients and opposing counsel by mail and email on January 18, 2024. (See 01/22/2024 Proofs of Service.)  Counsel confirmed the clients’ mail and email addresses through email communications with the clients.  (Forms MC-052 ¶ 3.)

In support of withdrawal, Counsel cites a “breakdown in attorney-client communications” and clients’ failure to “fulfill [their] financial obligations.” (MC-052, ¶ 2.) 

Based on the foregoing, “good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.

Accordingly, Counsel’s motion to be Relieved as Counsel for individual Defendant Vershinin is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 11, 2024 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock
                Judge of the Superior Court