Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV22481, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22481    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 5, 2023                     TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Rossmoyne, Inc. v. Youngha Choi, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV22481           

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Attorney Shelly A. Sagara, counsel for Defendant Bon Dak, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 1/3/2023

PROOF OF SERVICE:

• Correct Address: OK.
• 16/21 (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b)): OK. Served by e-service and US Mail on November 10, 2022

CASE HISTORY:

•           07/14/22: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action, filed on July 14, 2022, alleging breach of contract in connection with construction and architecture services for Defendants’ fried chicken restaurant.

            Attorney Shelly A. Sagara, counsel for Defendant Bon Dak, Inc., moves to be relieved as counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Shelly A. Sagara’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Bon Dak, Inc. is GRANTED.

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

DISCUSSION:

Attorney Shelly A. Sagara, counsel for Defendant Bon Dak, Inc., moves to be relieved as counsel.

Moving counsel filed all three required forms (MC-051, -052, and -053) and included a proof of service as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d).  Moving counsel’s declaration states that Defendant was also personally served with the moving papers on November 10, 2022. (MC-052 ¶ 3.) Moving Counsel’s proof of personal service states that the moving papers were served on an individual named Seung Hoon Lee at 3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300, Los Angeles, California 90010. (Proof of Personal Service ¶ 3.) The California Secretary of State’s Business Search database reports that this individual was the agent for service of process of Defendant. (Cal. Sec. State. Business Search; File No. 4560352.)

In general, an attorney may withdraw, with or without cause, providing that withdrawal will 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 not yet set for trial. (MC-052 ¶ 6.) There is a Case Management Conference set for the same date as this hearing, and a hearing on a demurrer to the answer of Defendant Choi on June 7, 2023. The risk of prejudice to Defendant is therefore low due to the relative distance of any trial date. Moving Counsel’s declaration states that Defendant has lawfully dissolved as of March 7, 2022 and has not responded to communications from Moving Counsel and refuses to participate in the defense of the suit.  (MC-052 ¶ 2.) Given the evidence of the breakdown in the relationship and the relative distance of trial, the Court finds that these circumstances warrant withdrawal.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Shelly A. Sagara’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Bon Dak, Inc. is GRANTED.

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

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 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.