Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00120, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22PSCV00120    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: L

Counsel for Plaintiffs Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC’s and Charles Lewis’

(i.e., Law Offices of Steven R. Young, APLC) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is

GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed

order upon the Clients at the Clients’ last known address(es). The court sets an Order to

Show Cause Re: Representation of LLC for June 16, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

 

Background   

 

Case No. 22PSCV00120

 

Plaintiffs Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC (“Figueroa Street”) and Charles Lewis (“Lewis”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: Plaintiffs operate a full-service car wash on Defendants New Age Kaleidoscope, LLC’s (“New Age”) and Kam Sang Company, Inc.’s (“Kam Sang”) (collectively, “Defendants”) property. Plaintiffs were forced to close their business in late February/early March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs directly told Defendants that the business was closed and wrote to Defendants on November 27, 2020 of the financial impact Covid-19 had on the business. Defendants served two three-day notices to quit and filed an unlawful detainer complaint in Case No. 21PSCV00638 against Plaintiffs in violation of the Los Angeles County Rent Moratorium. Defendants did not dismiss the unlawful detainer complaint for 158 days. Further, one of Kam Sang’s vice presidents, Lina Mita (“Mita”), falsely promised Lewis during Lewis’s November 2015 negotiations to purchase the car wash and to obtain an assignment of the lease that Lewis would be given additional 10-year options to renew the lease if he waited three months after accepting the assignment of the lease. On January 27, 2019, Plaintiffs delivered a “Notice to Exercise Lease Option” to Defendants, which triggered Defendants’ obligation to provide a proposed rental figure for the coming option term by May 1, 2019. Instead, Defendants sent a written repudiation of the lease’s rent setting provisions on May 13, 2019 and demanded $38,586.75/month as rent for the first five years of the option period. The parties proceeded to arbitration with respect to the rent setting provision; there is a pending action to confirm, with a counter-petition to vacate, the arbitration award in Case Nos. 22PSCP00068. Plaintiffs seek to rescind the lease.

 

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-25 for:

 

1.      Recovery of Penalties for Intentional Violation of the Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium

2.      Fraud

3.      Rescission of Lease Based on Fraud

4.      Rescission of Guaranty Based on Fraud

5.      Breach of Lease

 

On April 25, 2022, New Age filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiffs, Sphere West, LLC and Roes 1-50 for:

 

1.      Breach of Written Contract—Minimum Base Rent

2.      Breach of Written Contract—Commercial Lease

3.      Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

4.      Breach of Personal Guarantee

5.      Fraudulent Conveyance

6.      Accounting

7.      Declaratory Relief

 

On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00356, 22PSCP00068 and 21PSCV00638; the instant case was designated the lead case.

 

On August 15, 2022, the court consolidated Case Nos. 22PSCV00120 and 22PSCV00356 and designated Case No. 22PSCV00120 as the lead case.

 

The Final Status Conference is set for January 9, 2024. Trial is set for January 23, 2024.

 

Case No. 22PSCV00356

 

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the commercial premises located at 1600 Stoner

Creek Road in the City of Industry (“subject premises”).

 

On April 8, 2022, New Age filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Figueroa Street

and Does 1-10 for:

 

1.      Unlawful Detainer

 

On April 13, 2022, the court related the instant case with Case No. 21PSCV00638 and

designated the instant case as the lead case.

On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00120, 22PSCP00068 and 21PSCV00638; Case No. 22PSCV00120 was designated the lead case.

 

On August 15, 2022, the court consolidated Case Nos. 22PSCV00120 and 22PSCV00356 and designated Case No. 22PSCV00120 as the lead case.

 

Case No. 22PSCP00068

 

On February 10, 2022, New Age filed a “Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award” as against Figueroa Street; on June 1, 2022, the “Order Confirming Arbitration Award and Judgment” was filed.

 

On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00120, 22PSCV00356 and 21PSCV00638; Case No. 22PSCV00120 was designated the lead case.

 

On July 21, 2022, Figueroa Street filed a “Notice of Appeal.” On November 17, 2022, remittitur was filed (dismissed).

 

Case No. 21PSCV00638

 

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the subject premises.

 

On August 9, 2021, New Age filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Figueroa

Street and Does 1-10 for:

 

1.      Unlawful Detainer

 

On January 12, 2022, New Age dismissed the entire action, without prejudice.

 

On April 13, 2022, the court related this case with Case No. 22PSCV00356 and designated Case

No. 22PSCV00356 as the lead case. On June 14, 2022, the instant case was ordered related to Case Nos. 22PSCV00120, 22PSCV00356 and 22PSCP00068; Case No. 22PSCV00120 was designated the lead case.

 

Discussion

 

The Law Offices of Steven R. Young, APLC seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for

Figueroa Street and Lewis.

 

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.

 

Attorney Steven Young (“Young”) represents that “[t]here has been a breakdown of the attorney/client relationship resulting in a loss of confidence between counsel and the clients. Clients have also breached the retainer agreement.”

 

Young states that he has served the Clients by mail at the Clients’ last known address with copies of the motion papers served with this declaration and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, via return receipt requested.

 

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above

have been sufficiently met.

 

Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing

service of the signed order upon the Clients at the Clients’ last known address(es). The court

sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of LLC for June 16, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.