On November 04, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Oliva, Alma,
Vega, Kevin,
and
Does 1-10,
Luna, Marilyn,
Ruiz, Eric,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A578CC3-7AA9-40F9-k 340377815948
F LE D
l
DANIEL G. LOPEZ, ESQ. (S.B.N. 315719) SUPERIOR coum 0F CALIFORNIA
C0! )NTV (\F 9AM RFRNARDINO
CHUNG & IGNACIO, L.L.P.
8577 Haven Ave., Suite 306
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FEB 01 202‘!
Telephone: (909) 652-3022
Facsmile: (909) 652—3023
RY
§
1&1 E'fi
Attorneys for Plaintiff, KEVIN VEGA and ALMA OLIVA ABRIANNA RODR‘GL‘EfDEPUT"
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
VOOO\)O\
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
KEVIN VEGA, an individual; ALMA OLIVA C380 NO-i CIV532221283
an individual,
12
. .
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND
13 Plamnffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION
To BE RELIEVED As COWSEL
14 VS.
15 Date: 3/25/2024
MARILYN LUNA, an individual; ERIC Time: 8:30 a.m.
16
RUIZ, an individual; and DOES lthrough 10, Dept; S32
inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
20
I. LEGAL STANDARD
21
An attorney may apply for relief as counsel at any time before or after judgment,
22
provided notice is given to the client. Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2). The determination
23
whether to grant or deny an attomey’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record lies within the
24
sound discretion of the trial court. In deciding whether to grant or deny an attomcy’s motion, the
25
court focuses upon whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.
26
People v. Prince, (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406. The courts have applied the standard ofthc
27
Rules of Professional Conduct in determining if a client is prejudiced. Therefore, a client is
28
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A578CCB-7AA9-40F9- 040377815943
\y \z
prejudiced
M,
II.
if an attorney abandons or withdraws
Rule 3-700(A)(2).
PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE UNDULY PREJUDICED BY ATTORNEY
at a critical point in the case. M
WITHDRAWAL
A conflict has arisen between Plaintiff and Chung & Ignacio, LLP, Plaintiff’s attorneys
OOONOUIAWN
of record, which has irreparably attributed to the breakdown of thc attomcy-clicnt relationship.
Various attempts have been made to rectify this conflict; however, Plaintiff has been
uncooperative. Therefore, it has become impossible to continue representing Plaintiff under
these circumstances.
10 Where there is a significant breakdown in the attomey-client relationship, the courts have
ll granted an attomey’s motion to withdraw because of concern of the effects the rift would have
12 on legal representation. Estate 0f Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014. Similarly,
because there is a significant breakdown in the attorney-client relationship due t0 our inability to
14 communicate with Plaintiff and Plaintiff‘s inability to cooperate, prolonging this relationship will
15 be detrimental to both parties.
16 Furthermore, no prejudice would be incurred by Plaintiff by granting this motion to be
17 relieved as counsel.
18 III. CONCLUSION
19 For the reasons above stated. it is respectfully requested that the Coun grant
20 Daniel G. Lopez, Esq., of Chung & Ignacio, LLP’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record
21 for Plaintiff, Kevin Vega.
22 2/1/2024
Dated: CHUNG & IGNACIO, LLP
23 DocuS'ognod by:
24
LWWW
Dame
“52:7
opcz, Esq.
.
25
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kevin Vega
26
27
28
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED
Document Filed Date
February 01, 2024
Case Filing Date
November 04, 2022
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A578CC3-7AA9-40F9-k 340377815948 F LE D l DANIEL G. LOPEZ, ESQ. (S.B.N. 315719) SUPERIOR coum 0F CALIFORNIA C0! )NTV (\F 9AM RFRNARDINO CHUNG & IGNACIO, L.L.P. 8577 Haven Ave., Suite 306 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FEB 01 202‘! Telephone: (909) 652-3022 Facsmile: (909) 652—3023 RY § 1&1 E'fi Attorneys for Plaintiff, KEVIN VEGA and ALMA OLIVA ABRIANNA RODR‘GL‘EfDEPUT" SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA VOOO\)O\ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 KEVIN VEGA, an individual; ALMA OLIVA C380 NO-i CIV532221283 an individual, 12 . . MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 13 Plamnffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION To BE RELIEVED As COWSEL 14 VS. 15 Date: 3/25/2024 MARILYN LUNA, an individual; ERIC Time: 8:30 a.m. 16 RUIZ, an individual; and DOES lthrough 10, Dept; S32 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 An attorney may apply for relief as counsel at any time before or after judgment, 22 provided notice is given to the client. Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2). The determination 23 whether to grant or deny an attomey’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record lies within the 24 sound discretion of the trial court. In deciding whether to grant or deny an attomcy’s motion, the 25 court focuses upon whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case. 26 People v. Prince, (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406. The courts have applied the standard ofthc 27 Rules of Professional Conduct in determining if a client is prejudiced. Therefore, a client is 28 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A578CCB-7AA9-40F9- 040377815943 \y \z prejudiced M, II. if an attorney abandons or withdraws Rule 3-700(A)(2). PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE UNDULY PREJUDICED BY ATTORNEY at a critical point in the case. M WITHDRAWAL A conflict has arisen between Plaintiff and Chung & Ignacio, LLP, Plaintiff’s attorneys OOONOUIAWN of record, which has irreparably attributed to the breakdown of thc attomcy-clicnt relationship. Various attempts have been made to rectify this conflict; however, Plaintiff has been uncooperative. Therefore, it has become impossible to continue representing Plaintiff under these circumstances. 10 Where there is a significant breakdown in the attomey-client relationship, the courts have ll granted an attomey’s motion to withdraw because of concern of the effects the rift would have 12 on legal representation. Estate 0f Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014. Similarly, because there is a significant breakdown in the attorney-client relationship due t0 our inability to 14 communicate with Plaintiff and Plaintiff‘s inability to cooperate, prolonging this relationship will 15 be detrimental to both parties. 16 Furthermore, no prejudice would be incurred by Plaintiff by granting this motion to be 17 relieved as counsel. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons above stated. it is respectfully requested that the Coun grant 20 Daniel G. Lopez, Esq., of Chung & Ignacio, LLP’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record 21 for Plaintiff, Kevin Vega. 22 2/1/2024 Dated: CHUNG & IGNACIO, LLP 23 DocuS'ognod by: 24 LWWW Dame “52:7 opcz, Esq. . 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kevin Vega 26 27 28 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED