JENNIFER CHAN VS GREAT EASTERN COMPANY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069942    Hearing Date: October 21, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: day, October 21, 2020

NOTICE: See below[1]

RE: Chan v. Great Eastern Company, et al. (KC069942)

______________________________________________________________________________

Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) MOTION TO BE

RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 9/19/20, 9:11 a.m.; due 9/18/20)

Tentative Ruling

Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) Motion to Be

Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, contingent upon counsel for Plaintiff filing a corrected

proof of service reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice of the motion

and effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon

the Client.

Background

This is a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit involving Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (“Plaintiff”) residential property located at 2145 Wind River Lane in Rowland Heights.

On February 26, 2018, Ah Lay Tiow dba Great Eastern Company (erroneously sued as Great Eastern Company) (“Great Eastern”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against Plaintiff and Does 1-25 for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Fraud

   On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of against Defendants Great Eastern, County Records Research, Inc. (“CRRI”) and Does 1-25 for:

1. Wrongful Foreclosure

2. Negligent Loan Servicing

   Trial is set for March 8, 2021.

Discussion

Notice

The motion was filed on July 13, 2020; the proof of service accompanying the motion, however, is deficient, in that it pertains to a “Notice of Pending Action” and indicates a September 11, 2018 service date (but with a July 8, 2020 execution date).

The following ruling, then, is contingent upon moving counsel filing a corrected proof of service, at or before the date and time of the hearing, reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice:

Merits

The Law Offices of Steven Rein (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff

(“Client”).

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 and declaration 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 Rein (“Rein”) of Firm states in his declaration as follows: “There has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship as a result of which attorney can no longer represent plaintiff, the nature and extent of which is within the attorney/client privilege.” Rein also notes that “COVID 19 has substantially negatively impacted [his] ability to handle this case, with [his] office being in Simi Valley, nearly 100 miles from Pomona.”

Rein states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration, and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, by telephone.

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 reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client.

Case Number: KC069942    Hearing Date: October 01, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Thursday, October 1, 2020

NOTICE: See below[1]

RE: Chan v. Great Eastern Company, et al. (KC069942)

______________________________________________________________________________

Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) MOTION TO BE

RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 9/19/20, 9:11 a.m.; due 9/18/20)

Tentative Ruling

Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) Motion to Be

Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, contingent upon counsel for Plaintiff filing a corrected

proof of service reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice of the motion

and effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon

the Client.

Background

This is a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit involving Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (“Plaintiff”) residential property located at 2145 Wind River Lane in Rowland Heights.

On February 26, 2018, Ah Lay Tiow dba Great Eastern Company (erroneously sued as Great Eastern Company) (“Great Eastern”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against Plaintiff and Does 1-25 for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Fraud

   On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of against Defendants Great Eastern, County Records Research, Inc. (“CRRI”) and Does 1-25 for:

1. Wrongful Foreclosure

2. Negligent Loan Servicing

   Trial is set for March 8, 2021.

Discussion

Notice

The motion was filed on July 13, 2020; the proof of service accompanying the motion, however, is deficient, in that it pertains to a “Notice of Pending Action” and indicates a September 11, 2018 service date (but with a July 8, 2020 execution date).

The following ruling, then, is contingent upon moving counsel filing a corrected proof of service, at or before the date and time of the hearing, reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice:

Merits

The Law Offices of Steven Rein (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff

(“Client”).

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 and declaration 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 Rein (“Rein”) of Firm states in his declaration as follows: “There has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship as a result of which attorney can no longer represent plaintiff, the nature and extent of which is within the attorney/client privilege.” Rein also notes that “COVID 19 has substantially negatively impacted [his] ability to handle this case, with [his] office being in Simi Valley, nearly 100 miles from Pomona.”

Rein states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration, and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, by telephone.

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 reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client.