Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV45480, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45480    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL (2)

Date:               9/29/22 (8:30 AM)                                         

Case:               People of the State of Cal. v. Maria E. Godecka et al. (21STCV45480)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel Jonathan T. Trevillyan’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for defendants Acorn Enterprises, Inc. and Maria E. Godecka is DENIED.

The motions contain the following defects:

In item 2 of the supporting declarations, counsel did not “state 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),” as is required by Rule of Court 3.1362(c). Rather, counsel cited Rule of Court 3-700, which does not exist. To the extent that counsel intended to cite Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700, this rule was replaced by Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16. In any event, counsel must provide more than the mere citation to some rule.  The most applicable rule requires a statement concerning what necessitates these motions.

In addition, counsel filled out item 3(b)(1) of the supporting declarations incorrectly. Mailing the motion papers to the “known mailing addresses” does not indicate that counsel “confirmed within the past 30 days that” the addresses where the clients were served are current. (See Rule of Court 3.1362(d)(1)(A).) Simply mailing the motion papers to the known mailing addresses demonstrates counsel made no effort to confirm that the addresses were correct. If counsel has been unable to confirm that the addresses where the clients were served are current or to locate a more current address, then counsel must indicate the efforts made to locate a more current address. (See Rule of Court 3.1362(d)(1)(B).)

Further, in each of the proposed orders, counsel did not set forth the clients’ current or last known addresses and telephone numbers in item 6. Counsel also did not complete item 7 of the proposed order by setting forth the date, time, place, and subject matter of the next scheduled hearing in this action.

Lastly, the Court notes that current counsel for defendant Polam Federal Credit Union (Karel Rocha of Prenovost, Normandin, Dawe & Rocha, 2122 North Broadway, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92706) was not served with the motion papers. However, the Court also notes that counsel substituted into the action after the motions were filed. In any future filings, counsel is required to serve all parties or their counsel of record.