Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV00457, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00457    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: L

1.         Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Defendant Wenjia Zhu’s (i.e., The Ma Law Group) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

2.         The hearing on Counsel for Defendants/Cross-Defendants Qi Yang’s, Min Zhu’s, Qinjm, Inc.’s and Hui Hua’s (i.e., The Ma Law Group) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to May 26, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.

Background   

Plaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC (“ROIC”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff is the owner of the property located at 2767 Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, California 91765 (the “Premises”). On or about June 30, 2018, Plaintiff and P.L. Bakery Café, LLC (“P.L. Bakery”) entered into a written Retail Shop Lease (“Lease”), wherein P.L. Bakery leased the Premises from Plaintiff for a term of 52 months. Lian Liu (“Liu”) and Laiping Bai (“Bai”) executed a Guaranty of Lease. On or about August 27, 2019, P.L. Bakery assigned the Lease to Qinjm, Inc. (“Qinjm”) pursuant to a written “First Amendment to Lease and Assignment of Lease.” Qi Yang (“Yang”), Wenjia Zhu (“W. Zhu”), Min Zhu (“M. Zu”) and Hui Hua (“Hua”) executed a Guaranty of Lease. P.L. and Qinjm failed to pay rent and other charges due and owing and were locked out of the Premises by the sheriff on April 22, 2021.

On June 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants P.L. Bakery, Qinjm, Liu, Bai, Yang, W. Zhu, M. Zhu, Hua and Does 1-20 for:

1.                  Breach of Lease

2.                  Breach of Written Guaranty of Lease

On August 24, 2021, M. Zhu’s and Hua’s defaults were entered on the complaint.

On January 18, 2022, Liu, Bai and P.L. Bakery filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), asserting causes of action against Kevin Lin dba Realty Pro 100 (“Lin”), Qinjm, Yang, Hua, W. Zhu, M. Zhu and Does 1-20 for:

1.                  Indemnification

2.                  Declaratory Relief

3.                  Fraud

4.                  Breach of Oral Contract

5.                  Relief Under Civil Code § 3543

On September 15, 2022, a “Stipulation for Conditional Dismissal and Order Thereon” was filed.

On October 4, 2022, Liu, Bai and P.L. Bakery dismissed their FACC filed January 18, 2022, with prejudice.

On April 18, 2023, the court granted ROIC’s “Motion to Enforce Settlement.” On April 19, 2023, an “Order Granting Motion to Enforce Settlement” and judgment were filed.

1.         Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Re: W. Zhu

The Ma Law Group (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for W. Zhu (“Client”).

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, the declaration, and the proposed order 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)). 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.

The court notes that the instant motion originally came on calendar on April 18, 2023; the minute order from that date reflects that the parties submitted to the court’s tentative ruling, which was adopted as the final order of the court. On that date, the court continued the hearing on the instant motion to May 18, 2023; in doing so, the court instructed Ma to (1) file a proof of service reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005-compliant notice of the instant hearing to the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case, (2) file and serve a notice of continuance forthwith and to (3) lodge a Judicial Council Form MC-053 proposed order with the court in the interim.

It does not appear that Ma has filed the above-mentioned proof of service. Although Ma lodged a proposed order, said order pertains to W. Zhu and to Yang, M. Zhu, Qinjm, and Hua; Yang, M. Zhu, Qinjm, and Hua, however, are the subject of a separate motion to be relieved as counsel. Additionally, as noted previously by the court, Ma’s declaration fails to provide the court with any information in Paragraph 3(a) as to service of the motion.

The motion, then, is denied without prejudice.

2.         Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Re: W. Zhu

The hearing is continued to May 26, 2023 at 9:30 a.m., based on the notice deficiency set forth in footnote #2. Ma is to provide notice of the continuance forthwith.