Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00461, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00461    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: R

Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Donald Enebeife Iwuchukwu, Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Donald Enebeife Iwuchukwu, Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is Granted, effective upon [see below].

Background

This is an employment case.

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs Dong Kwon Lee and Eun Sook Kim filed suit against Defendant 101 Sushi Roll and Grill.[1]

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)[2] asserting the following causes of action:

(1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 204, 510 (2) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1194, 1194.2, 1197.1

(3) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.7, 512

(4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.7

(5) FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPLIT SHIFT PREMIUM PAY

(6) CONVERSION

(7) FAILURE TO PROVIDE FINAL WAGES AT SEPARATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 201, 203

(8) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200

On May 31, 2022, Dong Kwon Lee filed a ‘Substitution of Attorney’ replacing former legal counsel, Donald Iwuchuku, with ‘new legal representative’ wherein Dong Kwon Lee would represent himself.

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff Dong Kwon Lee filed another ‘Substituion of Attorney’ replacing himself as pro per with Marlis Park, P.C., 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1815, Los Angeles, CA 90010.

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff Eun Sook Kim filed a ‘Substitution of Attorney’ replacing herself as pro per with Counsel Marlis Park.

On June 21, 2022, Donald Iwuchukwu filed a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, which the court denied for the failure to file separate motions to be relieved and failure to file proof of service.

On August 2, 2022, Counsel re-filed his application

Discussion

Counsel again fails to provide proof of service that the two motions have been served upon his clients. However, as counsel has cured a previously noted defect by filing two separate motions, the court elects to overlook the defect so long as Counsel files proof of service of the motions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motions are GRANTED, effective upon the filing of proof of service of this court’s order relieving Counsel, sent to Plaintiffs, Defendants, and all other parties who have appeared in the case and filing of proof of service of Counsel’s motions upon Defendants.