Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 20STCV10464, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10464    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Attorney Joseph Frondle’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Envirogreen Windows and Doors, Inc. is GRANTED.

Factual background

This matter arises from an alleged breach of contract. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Xiaoxing Zhang (“Plaintiff”) negotiated with Defendant Zhe Zhang (“Zhang”) regarding renovations to the Subject Properties (the “Project”). (Compl. ¶ 11.) Zhang required payments of two “deposits” before any contract was signed and work began. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) The contract ultimately presented by the Defendants was for a different scope of work, and a different general contractor, than previously agreed by the parties. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15-16.) Zhang and Defendants HLS Highlife Style, LLC (“HLS”) and Envirogreen Windows and Doors, Inc. (“EWD”) failed to complete their contractual obligations despite receiving $24,000 before work commenced, failed to pay the subcontractors who Plaintiff ultimately paid, and refused to return the money paid. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Zhang, HLS, and EWD asserting eleven causes of action for:

1.    Breach of Contract

2.    Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3.    Promissory Fraud

4.    Intentional Misrepresentation

5.    Concealment

6.    Violation of California Business Code § 17200 et seq.

7.    Violation of California Business Code § 7031

8.    Violation of California Business Code § 7100 et seq.

9.    Violation of California Business Code § 7159.5

10. Conversion

11. Declaratory Relief

On May 26, 2020, Zhang and EWD filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, HLS, Variety Design Center, Inc. (“VDC”), J.D. Huang Investment Inc. (“J.D.”), David Su (“Su”), Jian Huang (“Huang”), and Dazhai Huang (“Dazhai”).

On August 11, 2020, HLS filed a Cross-Complaint against Zhang and EWD asserting two causes of action for:

1.    Indemnity

2.    Breach of Fiduciary Duty

On December 11, 2020, Zhang and EWD (hereinafter “Cross-Complainants”) filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) against, inter alia, HLS, VDC and Su asserting six causes of action for:

1.    Breach of Contract

2.    Comparative Indemnity

3.    Implied Indemnity

4.    Fraud by False Promise

5.    Contribution

6.    Unjust Enrichment

On February 15, 2022, Cross-Complainants filed a Second Amended Complaint, removing the cause of action for Unjust Enrichment.

On May 31, 2022, Attorney Joseph Frank Frondle (“Frondle”) filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for EWD.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

Attorney Joseph Frank Frondle moves to be relieved as Counsel for Defendant Envirogreen Windows and Doors, Inc. 

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be 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(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure 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 and declaration 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 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. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) 

Frondle has satisfied all the requirements of Rule 3.1362. In his Declaration, Frondle states that EWD has informed Frondle that it no longer wishes to have his representation in the action, and that the attorney client relationship has broken down to a point where it cannot be repaired.

The Court finds that there is good reason for Frondle to be relieved as counsel, and as no opposition has been filed, and as the motion is filed pursuant to his client’s wishes, his removal will result in neither prejudice to their client nor disruption of the orderly process of justice.

Accordingly, the motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.  

DATED: August 9, 2022 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court