Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00045227-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00045227-CU-OE-CTL GREEN VS UNCLE EDS VODKA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record, 09/06/2023

Tentative Rulings on Motions to Be Relieved

Green v. Uncle Ed's Vodka, Case No. 2022-45227 Sept. 29, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is an employment case arising out of plaintiff's 2019-2021 service as 'retail sales associate' (and later 'independent contractor') of the defendant liquor manufacturer. He alleges breach of a December 11, 2021 'annual term employment contract,' misclassification, and consequent wage & hour claims.

The five count complaint was filed November 9, 2022. The FAC, which added a PAGA claim, was filed in March of 2023. ROA 8. Defendants have answered. ROA 7.

The case is set for trial in April of 2024. ROA 16-21.

A discovery dispute had been scheduled for hearing last August 18. The main bones of contention were contact information of other aggrieved employees, and profit information (not for punitive damages, but rather relevant to plaintiff's 'contractual entitlement to a percent of profits'). ROA 22. The moving party took the motion off calendar early last month. ROA 26.

Presently, counsel for defendants seeks leave to withdraw. ROA 27-34. The court set the motions on shortened time following counsel's ex parte application. ROA 39-48. There is no opposition.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. Motions for leave to withdraw are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 284 and CRC 3.1362.

Counsel are directed to use Judicial Council Forms MC-051, 052 and 053.

B. 'A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona.' Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898. 'It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.' CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029225  37 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GREEN VS UNCLE EDS VODKA LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00045227-CU-OE-CTL There are three policy reasons for this rule. First, if a corporate agent who is not an attorney acts on behalf of the corporation in court proceedings, that individual would be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Id. at 1146. Attorneys are required to be licensed so that the public is protected from being advised and represented by unqualified individuals. Russell v. Dopp (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 765, 773. Second, the rule furthers the efficient administration of justice by assuring that qualified professionals, who, as officers of the court are subject to its control and to professional rules of conduct, present the corporation's case and aid the court in the resolution of the issues. Third, the rule helps maintain the distinction between the corporation and its shareholders, officers, and directors. CLD Construction, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1146.

3. Discussion and Ruling.

A. Counsel states: 'We respectfully request to be relieved as counsel due to a breakdown in the attorney client communication.' This is a valid basis for withdrawal. Accordingly, the unopposed motions to be relieved as counsel are granted, subject to defense counsel providing proof on or before the hearing that defendants were provided notice of today's hearing. The proof of service attached to the notice of ruling only shows service on plaintiff's counsel. See ROA 49.

Defense counsel is directed to submit revised proposed orders that reflect the advanced hearing date.

Counsel is further directed to comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1362(e) upon receipt of the executed copy of the order.

B. The court sets an order to show cause hearing for defendant Uncle Ed's Vodka, LLC to show why its answer (ROA 7) should not be stricken for failure to substitute an attorney to represent it.* See Paradise, supra, 86 Cal.App.2d at 898; CLD Construction, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1145. The OSC will be heard on November 3, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 72.

_______________________ *The only answer on file pertains to the original complaint. There is no answer to the FAC.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029225  37