Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC02042, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02042    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS:                 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Megan Valles, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff Ricardo De La Luz Macias

RESPONDING PARTY:     None

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

(CCP § 284(2); CRC Rule 3.1362)

TENTATIVE RULING

Motion of Megan Valles, Esq. to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Ricardo De La Luz is GRANTED. PROPOSED ORDER HAS BEEN FILED. RULING TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED ORDER ON ALL PARTIES.

Moving party to give notice.

[For the Court’s Own Purposes: CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTATION:]

NOTICE OF MOTION: (CCP § 284(2))

     Used Notice of Motion/Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051) and timely (16/21 days)?  [CCP § 1005(b)].

[X] MC-051 used                [X] MC-051 timely served                [X] MC-051 timely filed

[   ] Defective:                     [   ] MC-051 NOT timely served      [   ] MC-051 NOT timely filed

[   ] Defective:  MC-051 not used   

DECLARATION: (CCP § 2015.5; CRC 3.1362)

     Used Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil Form (MC-052)

[X] MC-052 used                [X] MC-052 timely served                [X] MC-052 timely filed

[   ] Defective:  MC-052 not used     ([   ] ‘Custom’ declaration incorrectly used)

[   ] Defective:  No grounds stated as reason for withdrawal

[   ] Defective: MC-052 NOT timely served

[   ] States in general terms the grounds for withdrawal as:       

[X] Non-cooperation                                                          [   ] Client Missing                              

[   ] Differences between attorney & client                     [   ] Nonpayment of fees

[X] Non-communication                                                   [   ] Refusal of Attorney to Substitute Out

[   ] Conflict of Interest                                                      [   ] Other:

Does DECLARATION (MC-052) give proper CONFIRMATION of client’s address within 30 DAYS of Motion’s filing date?  [CRC 3.1362.]  

                [X] Yes:  Sufficient                             [   ] No

-OR-                      

[   ] Last known residence or business address & attorney unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts.

-OR-

[   ] Personal service at: 

Any Defects with the above?           [X] No                                  [   ] Yes

Upcoming Hearings identified?     [   ] No                                  [X] Yes                                  [   ] N/A

IS AFFECTED PARTY (Client)....       A CORPORATION?          [   ] Yes         [X] No

      GUARDIAN OF WARD?  [   ] Yes         [X] No

OPPOSITION FROM AFFECTED PARTY (Client)?                [X] None filed     [   ] Yes:  

OPPOSITION FROM ANOTHER OPPOSING PARTY?         [X] None filed      [   ] Yes:

PROPOSED ORDER:  [CRC 3.1362]

     Used Order Granting Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil Form (MC-053)

[X] MC-053 used                       [   ] Defective:  MC-053 NOT used

[X] MC-053 timely Lodged        [   ] MC-053 NOT timely Lodged      

[X] MC-053 timely served         [   ] MC-053 NOT timely served

     [X] Specifies upcoming hearing dates & trial date   [   ] Defective

                      NOTE: >> Court may delay the effective date of Order until POS of the signed Order is filed with the Court.

PROOF OF SERVICE(S):

     Is Client’s/Other parties’ address contained in Proof of Service and appear to be correct?  

Client:  [X] Yes     [   ] No    [   ] N/A    For other parties?   [   ] Yes    [   ] No   [X]    NA