NINGBO EGO-GLOBAL CO. (CHINA) LTD VS DECOR DU SOLEIL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0050    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Tuesday, January 12, 2021

NOTICE: OK

RE: Ningbo Ego-Global Co. (China) Ltd., et al. v. Décor Du Soleil, et al. (*******0050)

______________________________________________________________________________

Counsel for Plaintiffs Ningbo EGO-Global Co. (China) Ltd. and Akari International, Inc.’s

(i.e., Klinedinst PC) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 12/29/20, 3:00 p.m.; due 12/29/20)

Tentative Ruling

Counsel for Plaintiffs Ningbo EGO-Global Co. (China) Ltd. and Akari International, Inc.’s

(i.e., Klinedinst PC) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the

filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Clients. The

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

February 5, 2021 at 10 a.m.

Background

Plaintiffs Ningbo EGO-Global Co. (China) Ltd. (“EGO”) and Akari International, Inc. (“Akari”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant Tony Toan Nguyen (“Nguyen”) and his entities bought furniture inventory from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that the inventory was delivered, but defendants refuse to pay for it. On March 8, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed AJP Distributors, Inc. (“AJP”), without prejudice. On March 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendants Décor Du Soleil (“Soleil”), Nguyen, Lila Zhang (“Zhang”), 88Rose Décor (“88Rose”), Rose Bear, Inc. (“Rose Bear”), Unity Group Corp. (“UGC”), Unity Group, Inc. (“UGI”), AJP, Winson Huynh (“Huynh”) and Does 1-50 for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3. Goods Sold and Delivered

4. Account Stated

5. Open Book Account

6. Quantum Meruit

7. Fraud—False Promise

8. Concealment

9. Negligent Misrepresentation

10. Violation of Business and Professions Code ; 17200, et seq.

On May 16, 2019, Huynh’s default was entered. On June 14, 2019, Soleil and Nyugen filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants Nicholas Connor, Hui Jiang, Yi Quan Zhai and Does 51-100 for:

1. Assault

2. Battery

3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

4. Interference with Contract

5. Unfair Competition

On September 3, 2019, a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings” was filed by Soleil.

A Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy as to Soleil and an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Plaintiff and Defendant’s Failure to Appear are set for January 12, 2021.

Discussion

Klinedinst PC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs (“Clients”).

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.

Attorney Daniel Agle represents in Attachment 2 to his declaration as follows: This action was filed by Firm on behalf of Plaintiffs on January 16, 2019; at that time, the attorney primarily responsible for the matter was Jeffrey R. Groendal (“Groendal”). Groendal left Firm in September 2019 and joined the law firm of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (“Jeffer Mangels”). Plaintiffs elected, at that time, to move their files, including the files related to this matter, from Klinedinst to Jeffer Mangels. Klinedinst provided Groendal with both an electronic copy of the file and the original physical file for this matter in September 2019. Soleil’s

bankruptcy filing on September 2, 2019 resulted in a stay of this action. The stay commenced shortly before Groendal left Klinedinst and Plaintiffs’ files were transferred to Jeffer Mangels. There were no pressing matters in this case because of the stay, so Firm did not push Plaintiffs to get the Substitution of Attorney Form on file. Groendal has informed Agle that he has not been able to sign a Substitution of Attorney on behalf of Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs have not signed an engagement agreement with Jeffer Mangels. Personnel at Firm have attempted to communicate with Plaintiffs concerning the Substitution of Attorney Form and other matters, but Plaintiffs have been completely nonresponsive to all correspondence from Firm. Firm has only been able to obtain information relevant to Plaintiffs and the status of the Substitution of Attorney from Groendal who still has contact with Plaintiffs.

Agle states that he has served the Clients by mail at the Clients’ last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration. He confirmed the current address for Akari with Nicholas Connor (“Connor” on December 10, 2020. Agle represents that, as confirmed in the complaint, Akari is wholly-owned by the principals of EGO, and Connor is the authorized representative who signed the engagement agreement with firm on behalf of the Clients. Also, Firm sent the moving papers to the Clients by way of email to the two principals of EGO to Connor, using the email addresses that those persons used to communicate with Firm before they fired Firm in September 2019.

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 Clients.

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

February 5, 2021 at 10 a.m.