On 09/06/2016 BEN MARC GOLUB filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against U TURN SEVEN CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROBERT L. HESS. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
ROBERT L. HESS
GOLUB BEN MARC
U TURN SEVEN CORPORATION
2 U TURN RESTAURANT LLC
TRUJILLO & WINNICK LLP
TRUJILLO ANTHONY W
WINNICK ALEXANDER H.
BETTY RONALD W
8/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT)
8/28/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
8/28/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER H. WINNICK IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT
8/28/2019: Statement of the Case
8/28/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
9/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT)
10/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
10/18/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 10/18/2019, RULING RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION
10/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT)
10/21/2019: Order - RULING RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION
10/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT)
10/28/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
10/29/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
10/29/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
10/29/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
11/14/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO AGAWA MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
11/14/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF TO MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
11/14/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
DocketRETURNED MAIL; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Order to Show Cause Re: (Default Judgment) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment; Trial Setting Confe...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDefault Judgment; Filed by Ben Marc Golub (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by 2 U Turn Restaurant, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Thomas K Agawa (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel) of 12/04/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketDECLARATION OF DILIGENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION (LABOR CODE 1194); ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Ben Marc Golub (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Ben Marc Golub (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC632791 Hearing Date: December 04, 2019 Dept: 24
Thomas K. Agawa’s motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.
On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff Ben Marc Golub filed the instant wrongful termination/wage and hour suit against Defendants U-Turn Seven Corporation (“USC”), 2 U-Turn Restaurant LLC (“2UR”), Rafik Mgaieth, Jonathan Magaieth, and Yoann Mgaieth. Defendants had their answers stricken by the Court and their default entered after their failure to appear on June 21, 2018 for an OSC. However, on October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which asserts six causes of action for 1) unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation; 2) unpaid premium wages for meal and rest periods not received; 3) unfair competition; 4) unpaid continuing wages; 5) wrongful termination; and 6) accounting. Defendants have not answered the FAC.
On October 29, 2019, 2UR’s counsel Thomas K. Agawa (“Counsel”) filed the instant motion to be relieved. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition. No reply was submitted.
The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (CCP § 284(2).) The attorney seeking to withdraw must take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, 3-700(A)(2). See, e.g., Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192 [holding withdrawal prejudicial where attorney withdraw from the representation of defendant on the Friday before trial began the following Monday].) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)
An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (CRC 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (CRC, 3.1362(d).) When a client is served by mail, the attorney’s declaration must indicate that the client’s address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Id.) If the attorney is unable to confirm the client’s current address, the declaration must state the reasonable efforts made within the last 30 days to obtain the client’s current address. (Id.)
Additionally, the declaration “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship why” a motion is brought instead of filing a substitution of attorney. (CRC, 3.1362(c).)
The Court finds that Counsel submits all the mandatory forms. Counsel states that an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship has occurred and there has been no communications for over a year. Counsel has served his client by mail at his last known address, which was confirmed within the past 30 days through the secretary of state website. The declaration notes the hearings on calendar. No prejudice is apparent, as trial is not set.
Plaintiff objects to the withdrawal on the basis that a corporation cannot be self-represented. Indeed, it is a long-standing rule of procedure that a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director, or other employee who is not an attorney, but must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record. (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1141.) Plaintiff notes that the Court previously struck 2UR’s attempt to substitute itself in pro per. However, the instant scenario is readily distinguishable from Plaintiff’s cited cases or the previous attempt to substitute. 2UR is not being allowed to proceed in pro per, and must retain counsel. If 2UR does not retain counsel, then it will not be allowed to proceed in the action and will have its answer stricken—if it even answers. (Cf. Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192 [disallowing withdrawal on the eve of trial, since withdrawal would effectively force the corporation to appear pro per].)
Plaintiff argues that he would be prejudiced by allowing Counsel for 2UR to be relieved. However, Plaintiff gives no reasoned explanation on how he would be prejudiced by Counsel’s departure, beyond an unspecified, unsupported speculation that he would have service trouble. This, of course, has no causal connection with counsel’s withdrawal. Plaintiff mentions a “risk of overlap” that might result in a lack of notice to Defendant but provides no substantive analysis on how Counsel’s withdrawal would be prejudicial. First, the FAC was already served and they have an address for 2UR’s agent of service of process. (Winnick Decl., ¶ 7; RJN Ex. F.) Further, any trouble that Plaintiff may experience with attempting to serve 2UR or any other defendant would be equally disconnected from Counsel’s withdrawal. Plaintiff does not cite any authority that Counsel must remain in the case against his will to allow Plaintiff an easier method of service.
Generally, the only concern in terms of prejudice for relieving counsel is whether the client will be prejudiced by the withdrawal. (Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197.) If 2UR defaults or cannot find representation, then Plaintiff would not be prejudiced at all. In fact, this is likely a benefit to Plaintiff, if anything. In any event, Plaintiff has given no authority that the Court should even consider Plaintiff’s prejudice. Moreover, Plaintiff’s identified prejudice does not appear to justify denial of the instant application. Accordingly, Counsel’s motion is GRANTED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases