Addy Kim v. Ki Tae Kim, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ADDY KIM

 

MOVING PARTY: Catherine Hwang (counsel for Plaintiff Addy Kim)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Addy Kim, a tenant at a property owned or managed by Defendants Ki Tae Kim and Young Hi Kim, brings this action for alleged breaches of habitability.

Catherine Hwang, counsel for Plaintiff, now moves to be relieved as counsel. No opposition was filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Addy Kim is GRANTED.

Withdrawing counsel 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

Attorney Catherine Hwang moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Addy Kim. Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053.  The Proof of Service reflects service of the motion on Plaintiff and opposing counsel by mail and email, respectively, on April 17, 2025. (See Proof of Service.) 

Counsel has been unable to confirm Plaintiff’s address within the last 30-days. However, withdrawing counsel’s declaration states that counsel “spoke with our client via phone on February 25, 2025 and mailed a letter on February 25, 2025 to his last known address, to notify him that AJSOCAL would be withdrawing.” (MC-052 ¶ 3, Attach. 3.) Further attempts to communicate with the client in February and April were unsuccessful. (Id.)

In support of withdrawal, counsel attests that the firm “believes that a continuation of its representation of Mr. Kim is likely to result in a violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct,” that Mr. Kim “has made it unreasonably difficult for [the firm] to effectively carry out its representation of him, including because of failures to communicate regarding critical elements of his representation,” and that these “issues have led to a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship…” (MC-052, Attach. 2, Hwang Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.)

Here, “good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.  In addition, there is no obvious prejudice to the client or any other party if counsel is relieved at this time. Trial is not set until August 11, 2025, leaving the Plaintiff time to retain new counsel if necessary.  

Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Addy Kim is GRANTED.

Withdrawing counsel is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   May 9, 2025 ___________________________________