Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: BC700634, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: BC700634, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC700634 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: January 21, 2025

CASE NUMBER: BC700634

CASE NAME: Julie A. Esphorst v. Darryl Leander Hicks, et al.

ATTORNEY NAME: Allison L. Grandy, Cullins & Grandy LLP, counsels of record for Defendant, Tung Ming

DISPOSED OF DATE: January 26, 2024 – Jury Verdict

MOTION: (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.

I. Background

On March 1, 2021, Plaintiffs, Jesse Franklin Esphorst, an individual, and as successor-in-interest to The Estate of Jesse Eric Esphorst, deceased (Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Tung Ming, Kwan Cheung, Teddyland, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50. On October 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Wrongful Death – Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se; and (3) Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Government Code § 835).

On January 26, 2024, this Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant, Tung Ming, in the amount of $58,762,500 plus costs and interest. Post-trial, this Court reduced the non-economic damages by 20%. Accordingly, on April 26, 2024, the Court entered an Amended Judgment against Defendant, Tung Ming, in the amount of $47,410,000 plus costs and interest. Tung Ming failed to appear at the trial, and counsel who are filing this motion valiantly attempted to defend his interests even though they reported to the Court that they had lost communication with their client shortly before trial was scheduled to commence.

On May 3, 2024, Defendant, Tung Ming filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 14, 2024, Defendant, Tung Ming and insurer served a document entitled “undertaking on Appeal” which purports to be an undertaking in the amount of $60,000. (Plaintiff’s Moving Papers, Exhibit 1.)

On December 23, 2024, Defendant, Tung Ming’s (“Ming”) attorney, Allison L. Grandy, Cullins & Grandy LLP (“Grandy”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Ming.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 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, Ming’s attorney, Grandy, moves the court to relieve them as attorneys of record for Ming. Grandy properly filed a Notice of Motion, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration, and Proposed Order in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. Grandy’s declaration indicates that the Ming was served by mail at the client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with the declaration. Grandy also attests that they have been unable to confirm Ming’s last known address or to locate a more current address for the client after making the following efforts: Speaking with Defendant, Tung Ming, and serving him with the moving papers via e-mail, the man means of communication Ms. Grandy’s office has communicated with her client through this litigation. In an ex parte application filed December 23, 2024, Grandy’s office stated that they had recently re-established contact with him.

In the declaration, Grandy states that the reason for their motion is that, “[a] conflict has arisen between defendant and counsel, rendering it impracticable to continue in the attorney-client relationship.” Further, Grandy contends that “defendant [Ming]…has engaged in conduct such that it is unreasonably difficult for [their] office to effectively represent his interests. As a result, [Grandy represents that] there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” Grandy further asserts that “[a] voluntary substitution of attorney form could not be obtained from the client.] Grandy informs the Court they will provide the Court more details if the Court so requires at an in-camera hearing.

Here, Ming’s attorney has complied with all procedural requirements in filing their motion to be relieved as counsel. Thus, the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Allison L. Grandy, Esq.’s and her firm of Cullins & Grandy LLP’s Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel is GRANTED.

Counsel is ordered to provide notice to Ming at the email address at which they last were able to communicate with him, and to file proof of service of the Order on this motion on him.