Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV00405, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00405    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 45

Coutudi Corp. v. Denim Place, Inc., et al.

motion to be relieved as counsel

Date of Hearing:         02/19/25                                  Trial Date:       06/30/2025     

Department:                45                                            Case No.:        23STCV00405           

Moving Party:             Counsel for Plaintiff – Rodney Bell and Audrey Khoo of Change & Cote LLP

Responding Party:      N/A - Unopposed

BACKGROUND

Factual and Procedural Background -

On January 9, 2023, Coutudi Corp. (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Denim Place, Inc. (Denim). On October 16, 2023, a First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed containing nine causes of action against Denim, Wei Mao, Fang Wang, Chang Bo Wu, and Pristine-Wear Inc. The allegations within the FAC surround business dealings between the parties concerning shipments of clothing and garments.

            The motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsels’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (the Motion). The Motion is unopposed.  

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), and MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c)). The declaration must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

            Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) A motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994), 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

ANALYSIS

             Plaintiff’s Counsel has provided all the necessary requirements. The MC-051 has been completed, and the MC-052 contains all known hearing dates at the time the MC-052 was submitted. Additionally, all notice requirements have been met, there is no opposition to the Motion, and the Court finds no prejudice will result to the client at this time. Finally, Plaintiff’s Counsel makes clear the reasons for the Motion is the client’s conduct has rendered it unreasonably difficult continue legal representation.

CONCLUSION

            Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.