Ameris Bank vs. SF Glass Cleaning Solutions

The notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Civil Procedure Code section 284 shall be directed to the client and shall be made on the Judicial Council’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil form (Form MC-051). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a).)

No memorandum is required for the motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(b).)

However, “[t]he motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorneyclient 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).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c), italics original.)

In addition, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC- 053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e), italics original.)

Motions to be relieved as counsel “must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case” and service must be made by “personal service, electronic service, or mail.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)

If the motion is served by mail, it shall be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing either that (1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or (2)

the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to filing the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1).)

“As used in this rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.” (Ibid.)

If the motion is served by electronic mail, “it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2).)

The motion may be brought on various grounds, some of which include the client’s failure to pay attorney fees, (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406); the client’s insistence on an action that is not justified under existing law or by good faith argument, (Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1015); and a conflict of interest between counsel and the client, (Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592.)

However, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, “a member shall not terminate a representation until the lawyer has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel, and complying with paragraph (e).” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(d); see Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Thus, the court has discretion to deny a motion to be relieved as counsel where discharging counsel would result in “undue prejudice to the client’s interests, ” (Ramirez vs. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915), or “an unreasonable disruption of the orderly processes of justice,” (People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975, 979). The court may also deny an attorney’s request to withdraw “where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding”.

(Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) However, such discretion is to be exercised reasonably. (Ibid.)

In this case, Counsel has complied with the requirements of the California Rules of Court, including serving the clients with the motion papers by mail at the clients’ last known address and confirming within the last 30 days that the address is the clients’ current address.

Counsel also has declared a justifiable reason to be relieved as counsel — that the clients will not respond to electronic mails and telephone calls, and have been completely unresponsive.

In addition, Defendants SF Glass Cleaning Solutions and Mei Mei Li already have stipulated that judgment may be entered against them and judgment has been entered against them in this case. (See ROA #64.)

As a result, the only hearing scheduled in this case is an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal on Settled Case that is set for October 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department C65.

Therefore, Defendants SF Glass Cleaning Solutions and Mei Mei Li will have sufficient time to find new counsel and will not be unduly prejudiced in their ability to prepare for the next hearing.

In any case, no opposition has been filed setting forth prejudice to Defendants SF Glass Cleaning Solutions and Mei Mei Li or any other party should the court grant the motion to be relieved as counsel. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288 [failure to address or oppose issue in motion constitutes waiver of that issue].)

Therefore, the court will grant the motion to be relieved as counsel.

However, the proposed order submitted by Counsel is now out of date, and the court will require Counsel to submit a new proposed order that is completely and correctly filled out.

However, Defendant SF Glass Cleaning Solutions is a corporation, limited liability company, or other artificial legal entity that cannot represent itself and must retain counsel to act on its behalf in court.

(See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284 fn.5; Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1318.)

While the ban on self-represented artificial legal entities does not prevent the court from granting the motion to withdraw, it does place pressure on Defendant SF Glass Cleaning Solutions to obtain new counsel or risk forfeiting important rights through non-representation. (See Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 1318; Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504.)

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the court and Counsel to advise the Defendant SF Glass Cleaning Solutions or the representatives of Defendant SF Glass Cleaning Solutions of the necessity of obtaining representation and to ensure that they obtain representation. (See Rogers v. Sonoma County Municipal Court, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 1318.)

The court will issue an order to show cause re: barring Defendant SF Glass Cleaning Solutions from litigating this case without counsel, and will order that Counsel serve Defendant SF Glass Cleaning Solutions and Mei Mei Li with the order relieving counsel, notice of the order to show cause re: barring Defendant SF Glass Cleaning Solutions from litigating this case without counsel, and notice of this ruling.

Counsel shall give notice of this ruling in the manner ordered by the court.

8 Cunningham vs. Demurrer Santa Ana Unified School District Defendant Santa Ana Unified School District’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend as to the 1st Cause of 30-2025- Action, SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to 01531073 the 2nd Cause of Action, and OVERRULED as to the 4th and 5th Causes of Action. If Plaintiff Pablo Cunnigham does not amend the Complaint within the period of time stated above, Defendant Santa Ana Unified School District shall file an answer or other pleading in response to the remaining causes of action of the Complaint within