Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV46212, Date: 2022-12-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.


Case Number: 20STCV46212    Hearing Date: December 28, 2022    Dept: 56

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

CECILE WILLIAMS,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

FRANK D. LANTERMAN REGIONAL CENTER, et al.,                                                                       

                        Defendants.   

 

      CASE NO.: 20STCV46212

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH

 

Date:  December 28, 2022

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

Jury Trial: August 7, 2023

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

 

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

 

BACKGROUND

            This order concerns Plaintiff’s motion to quash the service of the amended motion to be relieved as counsel (the “Motion”). 

 

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges seven causes of action arising out of an employment relationship.  On October 19, 2022, Dennis Kennelly (“Kennelly”) filed a motion to be relieved as Plaintiff’s counsel (the “Motion to Be Relieved”).  On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash (the “First MTQ”) which argued that the Motion to Be Relieved should be disregarded by the Court due to Kennelly’s failure to provide sufficient notice of the hearing as required under CCP section 1005, subdivision (b).  On October 27, 2022, Kennelly filed an amended motion to be relieved as counsel (the “Amended Motion to Be Relieved”).  On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, which argues that Kennelly’s Amended Motion to Be Relieved is defective.

 

After considering the arguments raised during the November 30, 2022 hearing on the Amended Motion to Be Relieved and the First MTQ, the Court issued an order, which it incorporates herein, denying the Amended Motion to Be Relieved without prejudice due to Kennelly’s failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  The Court found that the First MTQ was moot in light of its evaluation of the Amended Motion to Be Relieved.  The Court’s November 30, 2022 order indicated that Plaintiff could raise arguments in opposition to a future motion to be relieved as counsel if one was filed.  As of the date of this hearing, Kennelly has not filed a new motion to be relieved as counsel.  Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the instant Motion as MOOT.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

 

         Dated this 28th day of December 2022

 

 

 

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court