Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV13326, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13326    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Attorney Steven Harold Haney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants Hannah Park, David Park, Gyoung Jae Park, and Gyoung Jae Park and Yoon Hee Choe Life Estate Trust is GRANTED.

Factual background

This is an action for a landlord/tenant disagreement. Plaintiffs Beverly OB & GYN Medical Center, Inc. (“Beverly”) and Dr. Edward Ahn (“Dr. Ahn”) (“Plaintiffs”) allege the following in the operative First Amended Complaint.

Beverly, owned by Dr. Ahn, is a tenant on the first floor of the property located at 4620 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles (the “Premises”). (FAC ¶¶ 9-10.) Defendant Gyoung Jae Park (“Park”) was the owner of the Premises from approximately 2013 to 2020 and operates a medical facility on the second floor. (Id., ¶ 11.) Currently, Plaintiffs believe Defendant Gyoung Jae Park and Yoon Hee Choe Life Estate trust (the “Trust”) to be the owner of the Premises. (Id., ¶ 12.) The Trustees of the Trust are believed to be Defendants Hannah Park and David Park, the children of Defendant Park. (Id., ¶ 13.) Defendant Felipa R. Richland, acting through her law firm, defendant Richland & Associates, is the property manager for the Premises. (Id., ¶ 14.)

Plaintiffs allege that Park wants to expel Dr. Ahn from the Premises so that Park can take over Dr. Ahn’s offices. (Id., ¶ 2.) To force Plaintiffs to vacate the Premises, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have taken various actions in violation of the Lease and zone variances. (Id., ¶ 3.)

The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”), filed by Defendants / Cross-Complainants Gyoung Jae Park and Yoon Hee Choe Life Estate Trust alleges as follows.

In early 2020, Cross-Claimant informed Cross-Defendants Beverly and Dr. Ahn that Cross-Defendants last day of tenancy was approaching. (FAXC ¶ 8.) Cross-Defendants responded that they had an additional five-year option under the Second Amendment to the Master Lease. (Ibid.) A lawsuit ensued (the “Underlying Action”) in which Cross-Claimant sought declaratory relief as to the rights and obligations of the parties under the Second Amendment to the Master Lease. (FAXC ¶ 9.) In the underlying action, Cross-Defendants presented an invented document (“Forged Second Amendment”) that was never part of the executed agreements between any of the parties. (FAXC ¶ 10.) The Court in the underlying action determined that the Second Amendment was operative, and that the Forged Second Amendment was not valid. (FAXC ¶ 12.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting eight causes of action:

1.    Breach of Lease Agreement;

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

3.    Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

4.    Violation of Americans with Disability Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act;

5.    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

6.    Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage;

7.    Negligence; and,

8.    Fraud

On May 6, 2021, the case was reassigned to the instant Department 78.

On August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint asserting the same eight causes of action.

On February 17, 2022, Defendants filed the Cross-Complaint asserting three causes of action:

1.    Breach of Contract;

2.    Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair dealing; and,

3.    Ejectment

On July 6, 2022, Defendants filed the First Amended Cross-Complaint asserting a single cause of action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

On September 21, 2022, Defendants filed the Second Amended Cros-Complaint asserting two causes of action:

1.    Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and,

2.    Ejectment

On February 10, 2023, Attorney Steven Harold Haney filed the instant Motions to be Relieved as Counsel. No Oppositions have been filed.   

DISCUSSION 

Attorney Steven Harold Haney’s moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Hannah Park, David Park, Gyoung Jae Park, and Gyoung Jae Park and Yoon Hee Choe Life Estate Trust.

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.) 

Here, Haney has satisfied the requirements of rule 3.1362. In his declaration, Haney states Felipa Richland, the attorney in fact for above named defendants, has breached their retainer agreement by failing to pay the full amount due. Additionally, Haney attests that Richland has engaged in conduct creating a conflict of interest that he cannot discuss due to attorney-client privilege.

The Court finds that good cause exists to relieve Haney from representation of Defendants. And, as no Opposition has been filed, the Court finds that Haney’s relief will not cause prejudice to any party.

Attorney Steven Harold Haney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants Hannah Park, David Park, Gyoung Jae Park, and Gyoung Jae Park and Yoon Hee Choe Life Estate Trust is GRANTED.

As defendant Gyoung Jae Park and Yoon Hee Choe Life Estate Trust is a corporate entity, it cannot represent itself in this matter. Accordingly, at hearing, the Court will inquire as to the Trust’s intention to find substitute counsel.

DATED: March 17, 2023

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court