ROIC CALIFORNIA LLC VS IL JAN LE

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069940    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Thursday, November 14, 2019

NOTICE: OK

RE: ROIC California, LLC v. Le, et al. (KC069940)

______________________________________________________________________________

Counsel for Cross-Defendant Sunshine Cleaners, Inc.’s (i.e., J.P. Pak of The Law Offices

of J.P. Pak) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 11/4/19, 8:50 a.m.; due 10/31/19)

Tentative Ruling

Counsel for Cross-Defendant Sunshine Cleaners, Inc.’s (i.e., J.P. Pak of The Law Offices

of J.P. Pak) 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 Client. The court sets an

Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of Corporation for ______________________.

Background

Plaintiff ROIC California, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on or about February 10, 2000, Il Han

Lee (erroneously sued as Il Han Le) and In Ok Lee (erroneously sued as In Ok Le) (collectively,

the “Lees”) executed a written Shopping Center Lease (“Lease”), wherein the Lees leased the

premises located at 529 South Glendora Avenue, Suite 529B in Glendora, California

(“premises”) from Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest for a 5-year term. The Lees executed

various amendments to the Lease, which, inter alia, extended the Lease to January 31, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that The Lees assigned the Lease to Richard Chang and Helen Chang

(collectively, “the Changs”) on or about August 1, 2015, but that the Lees agreed and understood

that they would remain liable under the terms of the Lease. Plaintiff alleges that the Lease has

been breached for failure to pay rent.

On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants the

Lees, the Changs and Does 1-20 for:

1. Breach of Lease

On April 16, 2018, the Changs’ defaults were entered. On April 30, 2018, the Lees filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against the Changs dba Mama’s Cleaners and also dba Sun Valley Cleaners, Sunshine Cleaners, Inc. dba Glendora East One Hour Cleaners and Roes 1-20 for:

1. Breach of Written Contract

2. Intentional Misrepresentation (Fraud and Deceit)

3. Fraudulent Concealment (Fraud and Deceit)

4. Negligent Misrepresentation

5. Fraud and Fraudulent Transfer in Violation of UFTA (Civil Code §§ 3439-3439.12) and Penal Code §§ 154, 155 and 531)

The Final Status Conference is set for January 21, 2020. Trial is set for January 28, 2020.

Discussion

J.P. Pak (“Pak”) of The Law Offices of J.P. Pak seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for

Cross-Defendant Sunshine Cleaners, Inc. (“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 CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP § 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.

Pak 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 by telephone within the past 30 days that the address is current.

Pak states in his declaration that Client and Pak are “at considerable odds regarding the means and methods of the prosecution of this action, which has caused an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.” Pak further states that “Client has refused to communicate and cooperate with [Pak] and has not returned numerous messages.”

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 Client.

The court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of Corporation for

____________________.