Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00763, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00763    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 6/6/25

Case #24CHCV00763

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 3/26/25.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Daniel Greenbaum

CLIENT: Plaintiff Carlos Menjivar

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving attorney Daniel Greenbaum as counsel for Plaintiff Carlos Menjivar in this action. 

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.

On 3/26/25, attorney Daniel Greenbaum filed the instant motion seeking an order relieving him  as counsel for Plaintiff Carlos Menjivar (Plaintiff) in this action.  The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 8/28/25.  A proof of service was not attached to the motion papers nor was a separate proof of service filed. 

On 4/8/25, the hearing on the motion was advanced and continued by the Court to 5/16/25 with Plaintiff’s counsel being ordered to give notice.  (See 4/8/25 Minute Order).  Plaintiff’s counsel never gave notice of the rescheduled hearing date as ordered.    

On 4/22/25, the Court continued the 5/16/25 hearing date on the motion to 6/6/25, gave notice to Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s counsel and ordered counsel to give notice to all parties.  (See 4/22/25 Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order).  On 5/20/25, Plaintiff’s counsel served notice on defense counsel and on Plaintiff that the 5/16/25 hearing date was continued to 6/6/25.  However, there is no evidence in the Court file that the actual motion papers were ever served on Plaintiff.  The declaration filed in support of the motion indicates that the motion papers were mailed to Plaintiff’s last known address, return receipt requested.  (See Declaration, No.3.b.(2)(a)).  However, there is no proof of service reflecting such service and no return receipt has been filed. 

Since there is no opposition or other response to the motion by Plaintiff to cure any defect in notice, the matter is placed off calendar.   The Court also notes that the notice of motion and declaration mistakenly refer to the client as the “Defendant.”  (See Notice of Motion, No.3; Declaration, No.2).  Additionally, the proposed order does not include the client’s address and telephone number.  (See proposed Order, No.6).