Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC684829, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC684829    Hearing Date: August 15, 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

            Attorneys Barry A. Drucker and Tigran Martinian of Drucker Law Firm, PC (collectively, “Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Omar Santiago Castro.

The Court finds that Counsel has not filed proofs of service in connection with the motion to establish service of the notice of the motion and motion, declaration in support of motion, and proposed order on Plaintiff and all other parties who have appeared in the action, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)   In particular, one proof of service filed in connection with the motion indicates that Plaintiff was served with the notice of motion and declaration, but not the proposed order.  And the other proof of service does not indicate that the defendants who have appeared in the action have been served with any of the moving papers including the proposed order. 

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.