Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV04681, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV04681 Hearing Date: August 25, 2022 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Dept. 31 1:30 a.m. August 25, 2022 |
R. Alexander Comley (“Counsel”) seeks to be relieved as Plaintiff Piero Valdizan’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record. However, the Court’s records show that Plaintiff is representing himself in this matter in pro per. Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in pro per on February 5, 2021, and since this time, no substitution of attorney form has been filed providing that Counsel was now representing Plaintiff. Notably on August 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed various documents “in pro per.”
Even if Counsel and Plaintiff properly filed a substitution of attorney form, the motion would be denied. Counsel asserts that irreconcilable differences have arisen between Counsel and Plaintiff that make it unreasonably difficult to carry out employment effectively. Counsel has filed proof of service on Plaintiff and Defendants. However, Counsel did not file a declaration on mandatory judicial council form MC-052. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Counsel is ordered to give notice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
Dated this 25th day of August 2022
| |
Hon. Audra Mori Judge of the Superior Court |