ASIANA JONES VS SECRET SUNDAYZ ET AL

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff Asiana Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Secret Sundayz, LR 808 Olive-1 LLC, LR 808 Olive-2 LLC, Sun City L.A., and Does 1-90. The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability. The action arises out of an improperly assembled pole on a stage intended for pole dancing, at premises located at 801 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90014. Plaintiff, a customer at the premises sitting in front of the stage, alleges that the pole broke and fell away, causing injury to Plaintiff’s head. 

On November 16, 2017, Defendants LR 808 Olive-1 LLC and LR 808 Olive-2 LLC filed a cross-complaint as to Defendants Secret Sundayz, Sin City L.A., and Roes 1-25. 

On September 13, 2018, Plaintiff amended the complaint to substitute Loc Nguyen for Doe 1, NYX Nightlife Group, LLC for Doe 2, Boulevard Nightlife Group, LLC for Doe 3, and Koji Kawana for Doe 4. 

On April 24, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants LR 808 Olive-1 LLC and LR 808 Olive-2 LLC from the action. On April 26, 2019, Defendants LR 808 Olive-1 LLC and LR 808 Olive-2 LLC dismissed the cross-complaint as to all cross-defendants. 

On June 19, 2019, the Court entered default as to Defendants Sin City L.A. and NYX Nightlife Group, LLC.

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Boulevard Nightlife Group. 

On August 20, 2019, the Court entered default as to Defendant Loc Nguyen. 

On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Koji Kawana. On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Secret Sundayz.

On February 11, 2020, attorney Jeffrey L. Molchan on behalf of Legal Offices of David Grey, counsel for Plaintiffs (“Counsel”), filed a motion to be relieved as counsel as to Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2). 

Trial is not set. An order to show cause regarding failure to file default judgment against Defendants Sin City L.A., NYX Nightlife Group, LLC, and Loc Nguyen is scheduled for March 18, 2020.  

PARTY’S REQUEST

Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff due to irreconcilable differences that have arisen between Counsel and Plaintiff which prevents Counsel’s office from being able to effectively represent her. Additionally, Counsel declares that he forwarded a letter to Plaintiff requesting that she sign a substitution of attorney. 

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be 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 section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure 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 and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

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.)

DISCUSSION

Counsel has completed and filed forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Counsel declares that he served Plaintiff by mail on February 11, 2020, at her last known address and attaches proof of service as to all forms. The Court notes that Counsel declares he was unable to confirm that Plaintiff’s address is current, after making efforts to mail the motion papers to Plaintiff’s last known address with return receipt requested, and calling Plaintiff’s last known telephone number.

The Court finds that the motion is proper. There is no indication that Plaintiff would be prejudiced or that the orderly process of justice would be disrupted in granting this motion, as trial is not set in the matter. 

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Counsel is relieved as counsel for Plaintiff effective upon the filing of the proof of service of Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel–Civil form MC–053.

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.