Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01694, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01694    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 8


Tentative Ruling


HEARING DATE: April 25, 2024 

 

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01694 


CASE NAME: Pawnee Leasing Corporation v. Makai Solutions, et al.  


DEFENDANT’s NAME: Defendants, Makai Solutions, Daniel George Peterson II aka Daniel G. Peterson aka Daniel Peterson, an individual. 

 

TRIAL DATE: July 28, 2025  

 

MOTION: (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel  

 

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Service of this Tentative Ruling as well as the Court’s signed order will be required at Defendants’ last known address 

 

 

  1. Background

 

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff, Pawnee Leasing Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Makai Solutions, a California corporation, Daniel George Peterson II aka Daniel G. Peterson aka Daniel Peterson, an individual, Jordan Darst Peterson aka Jordan Peterson an individual (collectively, “Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Agreement; (2) Breach of Personal Guaranty; (3) Breach of Written Agreement; (4) Breach of Personal Guaranty; (5) Breach of Written Agreement; (6) Breach of Personal Guaranty; (7) Open Book Account; (8) Reasonable Value; (9) Account Stated; (10) Indebtedness; (11) Unjust Enrichment; (12) Claim and Delivery; and (13) Conversion. 

 

On April 4, 2024, Defendants’ attorney, Erica Loftis Pacheco, Esq. (“Pacheco”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

 

Trial is currently set for July 28, 2025.  

 

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion


Code of Civil Procedure § 284 states that “the attorney in an action…may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: (1) upon the consent of both client and attorney…; (2) upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 284; CRC 3.1362.) The withdrawal request may be denied if it would cause an injustice or undue delay in proceeding; but the court's discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably. (See Mandell v. Superior (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4; Lempert¿v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)

 

In making a motion to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with procedures set forth in Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362.¿ The motion must be made using mandatory forms: Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel directed to the client – Civil (MC-051); Declaration “stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” reasons the motion was brought (MC-052); and a Proposed Order (MC-053). (Ibid.) The forms must be filed and served on all parties who have appeared in the case. (Ibid.)

 

Here, Defendants’ counsel, Pacheco, moves the Court to relieve her as attorney of record for Defendants. Pacheco properly filed a Notice of Motion, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration, and Proposed Order in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362. On April 4, 2024, all forms for the pending motion were served on Defendants by mail. However, the moving papers demonstrate that Pacheco has been unable to confirm that the address is current or to locate a more current address for the client after making the following efforts: calling the client’s last known telephone number or numbers. Further, on April 4, 2024, proof of service for said documents were filed with the Court.  

 

At the hearing, the Court will inquire of Pacheco as to efforts to confirm the current address of Defendants to ensure proper service of this ruling and the Court’s order thereon. 

 

In the declaration Pacheco notes that this motion is made on the grounds that her law firm has been unable to meaningfully communicate with Defendants regarding the case for approximately the last five (5) months prior to the filing of the instant motion. During this time period, Pacheco notes that her firm has been unable to obtain meaningful input regarding discovery matters and matters related to settlement. Pacheco contends that without proper communication between Pacheco’s firm and Defendant, it has become unreasonably difficult for Pacheco’s firm to continue to represent Defendant effectively. In September 2023, Pacheco notes that Defendants voluntarily engaged Pacheco’s firm to continue to represent Defendant effectively. Pacheco notes that in September 2023, Defendants voluntarily engaged Pacheco’s firm to represent them in this action and entered into a respective fee agreement for those services. However, Pacheco notes that Defendants have been unable to fulfill their obligations pursuant to the terms of the fee agreement. Pacheco also notes defendants first breached the fee agreement in October 2023 and have remained in breach of the fee agreement ever since. Pacheco notes her firm first notified of their intent to withdraw in November 2023 if communication did not improve and the fee agreement was not upheld. Pacheco also notes that on February 21, 2024, Pacheco’s firm formally notified Defendants that opportunity to correct had expired and the motion to be relieved as counsel would be filed. Pacheco further contends that her firm has continued to formally notify Defendants of their intent to withdraw on an approximately weekly basis since February 2024.  

 

Since Defendants’ attorney has complied with all procedural requirements in filing a motion to be relieved as counsel and because the withdrawal would not cause an injustice or undue delay in proceedings, the Court finds that withdrawal of Erica Loftis Pacheco, Esq. as attorney of record for Defendants, can be accomplished without undue prejudice to his interests 

 

 

  1. Conclusion & Order 


For the foregoing reasons, Erica Loftis Pacheco, Esq.’s, Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel is GRANTED and the Order will be signed at the hearing. “After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on Plaintiff and Defendant has been filed with the court.” (Id.) 



Moving party is ordered to give notice.