Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00862, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00862    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: L

Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Honghua Shang’s (erroneously sued as

Hongshua Shang) and Defendant EChain, Inc. dba E-Chain Realty’s (i.e., Relaw APC)

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 Corporation

for June 16, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

Background   

Plaintiff Weiqing Xu (“Xu”) alleges as follows: On September 2, 2015, Honghua Shang (erroneously sued as Hongshua Shang) (“Shang”) and EChain, Inc. dba E-Chain Realty (“Echain”) (collectively, “Defendants”) induced Xu to sign two separate Power of Attorney documents. Xu also loaned Defendants $75,000.00 (i.e., $30,000.00 on or around June 1, 2015 and $45,000.00 on or around September 6, 2015). Although Defendants issued Xu a check for $5,000.00 on or around October 1, 2017, no further payments have been made.

On December 14, 2020, Xu filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-10 for:

1.      Breach of Contract

2.      Open Book Account

3.      Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation

4.      Fraud—Promise without Intent to Perform

5.      Conversion

On February 18, 2021, Shang filed a cross-complaint, asserting a cause of action against Xu and Roes 1-50 for:

1.      Breach of Contract

The Final Status Conference is set for November 27, 2023. Trial is set for December 12, 2023.

Discussion

Relaw APC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Shang and Echain (“Clients”).

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 Timothy S. Camarena (“Camarena”) represents that the Clients have failed to pay attorneys fees in this case, as per a written retainer agreement. Camarena further represents that Firm represented Shang in an unrelated case, that Shang has a past due balance in that matter as well, that Shen voluntarily signed a substitution of attorney for that matter which was filed March 16, 2023 and that Shang returned the signed substitution to Camarena via email from the email address houseexpress888@gmail.com.

Camarena 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 telephone. He states that Shang confirmed his residence address, and Echain’s current address, during a March 21, 2023 deposition in this case. He further states that he served the Clients electronically as well at the foregoing email address, and that he received an email from the Clients on March 15, 2023 from that address.

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 Corporation for June 16, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.