Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV13430, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.



Case Number: 20STCV13430    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

 

 

sharat industries, ltd. ;

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

ocean unlimited corp. , et al.;

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

20STCV13430

 

 

Hearing Date:

February 21, 2023

 

 

Time:

10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

[Tentative] Order RE:

 

(1)   motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant pak to lam

(2)   motion to be relieved as counsel for thomas jau

(3)   motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant harvest king trading usa, ltd.

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                Lawrence C. Ecoff

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Pak To Lam

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Thomas Jau

(3)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for defendant Harvest King Trading USA, Ltd.

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with each motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Lawrence C. Ecoff (“Defendants’ Counsel”) separately moves to be relieved as counsel for (1) defendant Pak To Lam, (2) defendant Thomas Jau, and (3) defendant Harvest King Trading USA, Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”).  In the interest of efficiency, the court discusses Defendants’ Counsel’s three motions to be relieved as counsel together.

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. 2) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’”¿ (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)¿ The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”¿ (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (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)).¿ 

The court finds that Defendants’ Counsel has served Defendants with the moving papers and proposed order by mail at the clients’ last known addresses, which Defendants’ Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days are current.  (MC-052 forms, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1)(b).)  The court further finds that Defendants’ Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why the three motions to be relieved as counsel should be granted, and why counsel has brought the motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) instead of filing a consent under section 284, subdivision (1).

The court therefore grants Defendants’ Counsel’s (1) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Pak To Lam, (2) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Thomas Jau, and (3) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Harvest King Trading USA, Ltd.

Lawrence C. Ecoff will be relieved as counsel of record for defendants Pak To Lam, Thomas Jau, and Harvest King Trading USA, Ltd., effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” as to each defendant, on the clients.

The court orders Lawrence C. Ecoff to give notice of this ruling and the “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” to defendants Pak To Lam, Thomas Jau, and Harvest King Trading, USA, Ltd., and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:  February 21, 2023

 

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court