Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV36814, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36814    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    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 

 Delavar Omidfar of Makkabi Law Group, APC (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jan Alunowski Campbell (Plaintiff).

ANALYSIS 

Counsel has failed to lodge with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  Further, Counsel has not filed proofs of service in connection with the motion to indicate that Counsel served the notice of the motion, motion, declaration in support of the motion, and proposed order on Plaintiff and the remaining parties. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d) [“[t]he notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case”].)  

Accordingly, the Court denies Counsel’s motion as procedurally defective.