Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV13079, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13079    Hearing Date: April 25, 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

            The Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Miguel Angel Munguia (Plaintiff).  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Counsel’s proof of service filed in connection with the instant motion indicates Counsel served the notice of the motion and motion, declaration in support of motion, and order granting the motion, on Plaintiff by electronic transmission on February 14, 2023.  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(d)(2).)  Here, Counsel has failed to advance a declaration by Plaintiff confirming the accuracy and currency of said email address.  Additionally, sections 3(a)(2) and 3(b)(1) of the MC-052 form indicate that the motion papers were served by mail at client’s last known addresses.  Further, Counsel has failed to include client’s name in the “TO (name and address of client):” section of form MC-051. 

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