Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV00436, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00436    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Law Offices of Jacob Emrani (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Grecia Solis Martinez.

ANALYSIS

The Court denies the motion as procedurally defective for three reasons.

First, Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052, but has not lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053, as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) 

Second, Counsel’s proof of service filed in connection with the motion indicates Counsel served notice of the motion and the motion and the declaration in support of the motion on Plaintiff by electronic transmission on June 15, 2022. Where notice is served on the client by electronic service, “it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(2).) Section 3a(2) of Counsel’s declaration indicates Counsel served Plaintiff by mail, not electronic transmission, and contains no statement indicating Counsel confirmed Plaintiff’s current electronic service address.

Finally, Counsel has not provided proof service reflecting that the proposed order on form MC-053 has been served on Plaintiff, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) 

The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective.  Counsel is ordered to provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.