Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01696, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 23PSCV01696    Hearing Date: May 13, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Edward M. Morgan, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon [see below].

Background

This is a premises liability case.

On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff Daniel Galusha filed suit against Defendants City of San Dimas, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a public entity; RAGING WATERS OF CALIFORNIA, LTD., a Utah Corporation; FESTIVAL FUN PARKS, a Delaware Limited Liability company; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive alleging that they were negligent because they failed to mark a concrete wall and/or barrier such that Plaintiff collided into it.

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed the instant motion.

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a declaration re: OSC re: Failure to file proof of service.

Discussion

According to Counsel Morgan, he seeks to be relieved as counsel because he has been unable to communicate with Plaintiff. Based on that lack of communication, Plaintiff’s Counsel has also not effectuated service on any Defendants as to “avoid the significant expenditure of funds and/or resources in serving the named Defendants.” (See OSC Declaration.)

Here, as Plaintiff is no longer communicating with Counsel which precludes effective litigation of the matter, the court finds good cause in granting the motion. As for prejudice, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to assert any concern nor are there any substantive motions on calendar requiring urgent need of counsel.

Therefore, as Counsel has complied with the California Rules of Court, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted effective upon service of motion and the court’s order upon Plaintiff.