Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV0431, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV0431 Hearing Date: September 14, 2022 Dept: R
Walter Arrivillaga v. Solo 1 Kustoms, Inc. et al. (21PSCV0431)
________________________________________________________________________
Defense Counsel Jerry K. Wang’s Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel to Solo 1 Kustoms, Inc.
Responding
Party: Unopposed
Tentative Ruling
Defense Counsel Jerry Wang’s Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel to Solo 1 Kustoms, Inc. is GRANTED, effective upon [see below].
Background
On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff Walter Arrivillaga (“Plaintiff”)
filed suit against Defendants Solo 1 Kustoms, Inc and Jose Hernandez (collectively,
“Defendants”) for fraud arising from the purchase of a vehicle.[1]
On September 8, 2021, Defendants filed their answer.
On July 22, 2022, Counsel filed two Motions to be
Relieved as Counsel, which the court did not rule upon as it continued the
hearings.[2]
On August 31, 2022, Counsel refiled his motion.
Legal Standard
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. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21
Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince
(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a
notice of motion and motion 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 § 284(2) is brought
instead of filing a consent under 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 the client and on all other parties who
have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving
counsel (prepared on the Order Granting
Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).[3]
The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving
counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has
been filed with the court.
Discussion
Previously, the court denied Defense Counsel’s motion for
the failure to explain why he sought to be relieved as counsel. Now, Counsel
explains that he and the client cannot effectively work together. The court
finds that as good cause.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defense Counsel’s Motion to Be
Relieved as Counsel for Solo 1 Kustoms Inc. is GRANTED, effective upon (1) the
filing of proof of service of this court’s order relieving Counsel, sent to
Plaintiff, Defendant(s), and all other parties who have appeared in the case,
and (2) filing of a proposed order.
[1] For the most part,
the complaint is illegible.
[2] Previously, counsel
sought to be relieved ascounsel for both Defendants. However, this
motion only seeks to be relieved as Counsel for Solo 1 Kustoms, Inc. The court
will inquire as to whether the change in the two motions was intentional or a
mistake because, as is, Counsel still represents Jose Hernandez.
[3] Defense Counsel again
did not submit a proposed order.