STEVE PARK, ET AL VS. SUNG KIL CHOI, ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC624282    Hearing Date: February 05, 2020    Dept: 26

On December 9, 2019, Dana M. Dorsett (“Counsel”), filed the instant motions to be relieved as counsel for Cross-Complainant LA Dong San Church Corporation (“Client”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

The MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states she has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by conversation with associate pastor, Hyechong An.

Counsel states that there has been a break down in the attorney-client relationship because Client has failed to pay and continues to refuse to pay attorney’s fees due and a breakdown of communications such that Counsel cannot effectively and competently represent Client.

Counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing and submit corrected MC-051 and MC-052 forms as well as a corrected proposed order on form MC-053. Provided that such corrected forms are submitted, based on the declaration filed by Counsel, the Court is inclined to grant the motions. However, the motions and declarations on forms MC-051 and MC-052 and the proposed order on form MC-053 have not been properly completed.

• Item 5a must be checked off to reflect that the order will only take effect upon filing of proof of service of the signed order.

• Counsel must replace item 7a with the following language: “Failure to appear at trial will result in dismissal of the Cross-Complaint.” LA Dong San Church Corporation is ordered to appear on February 19, 2020 and show cause why the Cross-Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to file a substitution of counsel. A corporation cannot represent itself in this action in propria persona.”

• In Item 9, Counsel must add the following language: “Failure to appear at trial will result in dismissal of the Cross-Complaint.”

• In Item 13, Counsel must add the following language: “A corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before this Court. LA Dong San Church Corporation is ordered to file a substitution of counsel within 10 days of service of this signed order and to appear on February 19, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26 with its new counsel. LA Dong San Church Corporation’s failure to timely retain new counsel or failure to appear on February 19, 2020 may result in the dismissal of the cross-complaint. Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of this signed order on all parties within 3 days.”

Counsel is responsible for determining if there are any other hearings scheduled or due dates for discovery for this case, including any motions hearings, which must all be listed in the proposed order. For each hearing, Counsel must state the date, time, and location of the hearing (“111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, Los Angeles, CA 90012”). For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent.

The Court notes that while a corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, 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. (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) “[A Corporation] must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record. (Id.; Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564; Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) However, “[a]n attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at 504.)

In light of these authorities, the Court will require that LA Dong San Church Corporation timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 10 days of service of the signed order (MC-053) so that new counsel will be prepared for trial by the current trial date. The court hereby sets an OSC regarding status of LA Dong San Church Corporation’s representation for February 19, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26. LA Dong San Church Corporation is ordered to appear on February 19, 2020 with its new counsel, who should be prepared to address counsel’s readiness for trial by the current trial date.

If LA Dong San Church Corporation fails to file a substitution of counsel within 14 days of service of the signed order, LA Dong San Church Corporation is ordered to appear on February 19, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26 and show cause why LA Dong San Church Corporation’s cross-complaint should not be dismissed. LA Dong San Church Corporation’s failure to appear on February 19, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26 shall be deemed consent to: dismissal of LA Dong San Church Corporation’s cross-complaint.

The proposed orders (MC-053) are corrected to add the following language to item 9: “Failure to appear at trial will result in dismissal of the cross-complaint.

The corrected Orders are signed and filed, and Counsel is relieved as counsel of record for LA Dong San Church Corporation, effective only upon Counsel’s filing of the proofs of service of the signed Orders upon LA Dong San Church Corporation. Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files proof of service of the signed order on all parties, including LA Dong San Church Corporation.

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including LA Dong San Church Corporation, and file proof of service of such within 3 days.