Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV04756, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04756    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 10, 2023                             TRIAL DATE: March 27, 2023 

CASE:                         Hosun Lee v. Jae Woo Lee et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV04756

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Attorney Jay J. Chung, counsel for Plaintiff Hosun Lee.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of February 7, 2023

CASE HISTORY:

·         02/05/21: Complaint filed. 

·         04/08/21: Dismissal entered as to First American Title. 

·         04/14/21: First Amended Complaint filed. 

·         08/09/21: Second Amended Complaint filed. 

• 12/16/21: Dismissal entered as to Rachel Yoonsun Lee; Detail Escrow, Inc.
• 12/16/21: Third Amended Complaint filed
• 02/01/22: Dismissal entered with prejudice as to DG Golden Key, Inc. and Jeeyon Gwon.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This was originally a quiet title action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jae Woo Lee (Plaintiff’s younger brother) fraudulently induced Plaintiff to quitclaim her real property to him with a promise that he would return it at her request, and then sold Plaintiff’s real property in Torrance to Golden Key Inc. without Plaintiff’s knowledge and converted the proceeds to himself. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint alleges two causes of action for fraud, two causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust, all exclusively against Defendant Jae Woo Lee.

            Attorney Jay J. Chung, counsel for Plaintiff, moves to be relieved as counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Jay J. Chung’s Motion to be Relived as Counsel is GRANTED.

This ruling is conditioned on Moving Counsel filing proof of service of the Court’s order on all parties.

The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial date and sets a trial setting conference for April 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. Moving Counsel is ordered to file a new proposed order reflecting the updated case schedule. 

DISCUSSION:

            Attorney Jay J. Chung, counsel for Plaintiff, moves to be relieved as counsel.

The Court previously advanced the hearing on this motion from January 30, 2023 to January 26, 2023 to order Moving Counsel to file and serve form MC-053 with proof of service, as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d). (January 26, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court then continued the hearing on this matter to this date. (Id.) Moving counsel has done as ordered by the Court. Forms MC-051 and MC-052 were filed on January 3, 2023, including a proof of service as required by Rule 3.1362(d). Form MC-053 was filed on January 27, 2023, with a proof of service as required. Moving Counsel’s declaration states that he served Plaintiff by mail and confirmed the address is current via email. (MC-052 ¶ 3.)

            In general, an attorney may withdraw with or without cause as long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the client’s interest – i.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation, because that would prejudice client, but can withdraw otherwise. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915.) The court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where the withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding, but the court’s discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)   

            Here, the matter is set for trial on March 28, 2023. (MC-052 ¶ 6.) There is a Case Management Conference set for March 14, 2023. (MC-052 ¶ 4.) The risk of prejudice to Defendant is therefore high due to the proximity of the trial date. However, Moving Counsel’s declaration states that the attorney-client relationship has failed, that trust and communications with the client have both broken down, and the client has both refused to cooperate with the terms of the representation and has not provided information necessary to continue the representation. (MC-052 ¶ 2.) In light of the evidence of the severe breakdown in the relationship, in spite of the proximity of trial, the Court finds that these circumstances warrant withdrawal.  The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial date and sets a trial setting conference for April 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Attorney Jay J. Chung’s Motion to be Relived as Counsel is GRANTED.

This ruling is conditioned on Moving Counsel filing proof of service of the Court’s order on all parties.

The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial date and sets a trial setting conference for April 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.  Moving Counsel is ordered to file a new proposed order reflecting the updated case schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   February 10, 2023                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.