DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
19TRCV00781·la·Civil·Breach of Contract
Hearing todayDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

YBANAG REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE SALVATION ARMY

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
B
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffYBANAG REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
DefendantTHE SALVATION ARMY

Attorneys

Orlando F. Cabandayfor Plaintiff

Ruling

(Torrance Courthouse: Dept. B) September 9, 2026 DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Southwest District Torrance Dept. B | YBANAG REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, | Plaintiff, | Case No.: |

| vs. | | [Tentative]

| THE SALVATION ARMY, | Defendant. | | | | | | | Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Moving Parties: Attorney Orlando F.

Cabanday, plaintiff's counsel Responding Party: None Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel The Court considered the moving papers.

RULING The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. There is no proof of service of the motion.

BACKGROUND On September 6, 2019, Ybanag Realty & Development Corporation filed a complaint against The Salvation Army for (1) breach of contract, (2) open book account, (3) account stated, (4) enforcement of mechanics lien, and (5) prompt payment penalties.

On January 8, 2020, the parties stipulated to stay the case pending arbitration.

On January 25, 2022, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney.

On February 4, 2022, defendant filed a substitution of attorney.

On July 20, 2026, the Court denied plaintiff's counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice.

LEGAL STANDARD 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.

CRC 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)).

DISCUSSION Plaintiff's attorney, Orlando F. Cabanday, seeks to be relieved as counsel of Ybanag Realty & Development Corporation dba D'Ybanag Construction Company.

Counsel states in his declaration that there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that continued representation is not reasonably possible.

Counsel states that he has confirmed the client's last known address by going to the address listed within the past thirty days.

The Court finds that the attorney submitted a declaration establishing that the service requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, have been satisfied in that they confirmed the client's address by personally visiting the client's place of business.

The Court also finds that the attorney has shown sufficient reason why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted.

There is no proof of service of the motion.

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ORDER The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 23TRCV02994 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: B Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Southwest District Torrance Dept. B | ILIA SERPIK, | Plaintiff, | Case No.: | 23TRCV02994 | vs. | | [TENTATIVE]

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share