Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00988, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00988    Hearing Date: September 11, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/11/23

Case #22CHCV00988

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 7/21/23.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Naveed Halavi

CLIENT: Plaintiff Theron Rand II

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving attorney Naveed Halavi as counsel for Plaintiff Theron Rand II in this action. 

RULING: The hearing on the motion is placed off calendar. 

On 7/21/23, attorney Naveed Halavi filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Theron Rand II in this action.

Whether and how the client’s address was confirmed is not clear.  The declaration filed in support of the motion indicates that the client’s address was confirmed by sending a letter, return receipt requested, to the client’s last known address, which was successfully delivered.  (See Declaration, No.3.b.(1)(d)).  However, the proof of service for the motion and supporting declaration indicate that the motion documents were served on the client via certified mail, return receipt requested and by email.  (See Declaration, No.3.b.(1)(a)).  If proper evidence of service via certified mail of the motion and supporting declaration had been provided, the letter would be unnecessary.  The Court finds the “confirmation” to be insufficient because neither a copy of the letter nor copies of the return receipts have been provided to the Court.  As such it cannot be determined what the letter said (i.e., Did it inform the Plaintiff that it was to confirm Plaintiff’s address for purposes of serving the instant motion?).  Similarly, because the return receipts were not provided, it cannot be determined whether Plaintiff, or someone else, signed for the letter and/or motion documents.  The declaration also contradictorily indicates that the attorney has been unable to confirm the address is current after mailing the motion papers, return receipt requested, calling the client and emailing the motion to the client.  (See Declaration, No.3.b.(2)(a), (b), (e)).  The declaration also fails to explain how counsel’s office knows the email address where the motion was sent is actively monitored as claimed.  (See Declaration, No.3.b.(2)(e)).    

Additionally, at the 8/2/23 Case Management Conference, the hearing on the instant motion was advanced by the Court from 12/19/23 and continued to 9/11/23.  (See 8/2/23 Minute Order). 

Plaintiff was ordered to give notice.  Id.  Attorney Halavi has not filed any evidence indicating that notice of the advanced hearing date was provided to Plaintiff or opposing counsel. 

Further, a proposed Order has not been submitted.