Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV34660, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34660    Hearing Date: September 13, 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

            Antonio Castillo, III of DRE Law, A.P.C. (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs Iman Ammari (“Iman”), Riham Ammari (“Riham”), and Razan Ammari (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).  The motions are unopposed.

ANALYSIS

The Court finds the motions to be procedurally defective for two reasons.

First, Counsel’s proofs of service filed in connection with the motions indicates Counsel served notice of the motion and the motion and the declaration in support of the motion on Iman and Riham by electronic transmission on August 19, 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 declarations indicates Counsel served Iman and Riham by mail, not electronic transmission.

Second, the Court finds Counsel’s service on Plaintiffs on August 19, 2022, by either mail or electronic transmission to be inadequate notice per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [16 court days plus 5 calendar days for service by mail or 2 court days for service by electronic transmission].)

The Court therefore denies the motions as procedurally defective.  Counsel is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.