Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV42483, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42483    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Attorney James Hornbuckle’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Lucio Arturo Aguilar is GRANTED.

Factual background

This is an action brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Jose Roberto Mejia (“Plaintiff”) was employed as a baker by Defendants El Valle Oaxaqueno, Inc. (“El Valle”) and Lucio Arturo Aguilar (“Aguilar”, and together with El Valle, “Defendants”). (Compl. ¶ 19.) Defendants subjected Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees to violations of the labor code, including: excessively long workdays; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay for all hours works; failure to pay overtime wages; and, failure to provide accurate wage statements. (Compl. ¶ 21-26.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting a single cause of action for Violation of Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.

On January 5, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer.

On September 22, 2022, Attorney James Hornbuckle (“Hornbuckle”) filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Aguilar.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

Attorney James Hornbuckle moves to be relieved as Counsel for Defendant Lucio Arturo Aguilar. 

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.) 

Hornbuckle has satisfied all the requirements of Rule 3.1362. In his Declaration, Hornbuckle states that there has been an irreparable breakdown of attorney-client relationship that makes it impossible for him to continue his representation.

The Court finds that there is good reason for Hornbuckle to be relieved as counsel. Additionally, as no opposition has been filed, and as trial is not set until April 10, 2023, his removal will result in neither prejudice to his client nor disruption of the orderly process of justice.

Accordingly, the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  

DATED: December 12, 2022 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

                                                   Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Attorney James Hornbuckle’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant El Valle Oaxaqueno, Inc. is GRANTED.

Factual background

This is an action brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Jose Roberto Mejia (“Plaintiff”) was employed as a baker by Defendants El Valle Oaxaqueno, Inc. (“El Valle”) and Lucio Arturo Aguilar (“Aguilar”, and together with El Valle, “Defendants”). (Compl. ¶ 19.) Defendants subjected Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees to violations of the labor code, including: excessively long workdays; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay for all hours works; failure to pay overtime wages; and, failure to provide accurate wage statements. (Compl. ¶ 21-26.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting a single cause of action for Violation of Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.

On January 5, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer.

On September 22, 2022, Attorney James Hornbuckle (“Hornbuckle”) filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant El Valle.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

Attorney James Hornbuckle moves to be relieved as Counsel for Defendant El Valle Oaxaqueno, 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.) 

Hornbuckle has satisfied all the requirements of Rule 3.1362. In his Declaration, Hornbuckle states that there has been an irreparable breakdown of attorney-client relationship that makes it impossible for him to continue his representation.

The Court finds that there is good reason for Hornbuckle to be relieved as counsel. Additionally, as no opposition has been filed, and as trial is not set until April 10, 2023, his removal will result in neither prejudice to his client nor disruption of the orderly process of justice.

Accordingly, the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  

Additionally, as El Valle is a corporate entity, it must be represented by a licensed attorney. (See e.g. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101). Accordingly, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Defendant’s Representation for sixty days.

DATED: December 12, 2022 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court