Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02284, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV02284    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/8/25                                                       TRIAL DATE: 8/18/25

Case #23CHCV02284

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 7/16/24.

MOVING ATTORNEY: William Rose II

CLIENTS: Defendants Ramon Fernandez and Lesley-Ann Brual Fernandez

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving William Rose II as counsel for Defendants Ramon Fernandez and Lesley-Ann Brual Fernandez in this action. 

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar. 

On 7/16/24, attorney William Rose II filed the instant motion seeking an order relieving him as counsel for Defendants Ramon Fernandez and Lesley-Ann Brual Fernandez in this action on the grounds that defendants have repeatedly failed to communicate with counsel; therefore, it has made it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to continue representation.  Copies of letters dated 5/10/24 and mailed to the clients via certified mail regarding their need to respond to discovery and communicate with counsel are attached to the Notice of Motion as Exhibit A.  However, no proof of service for the motion papers which were executed and filed on 7/16/24 has been filed.  As such, there is no evidence that the motion was served on the clients or opposing counsel as required.   CRC 3.1362(d).  There is no opposition or other response to the motion to cure the defect in notice.     

The Court also notes that the address of the clients is not set forth above number 1 in the notice of motion as required and the phone number(s) for the clients is not set forth in number 6 of the proposed order.