Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2020-01148762, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Ivan U. Cisneros seeks an order relieving him from acting as counsel of record for Defendant Elite Enforcement Security Solutions, Inc.

Initially,  while the required judicial counsel forms (MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053) relating to the notice of motion, declaration and proposed order have been utilized, they have not been properly served. [CRC 3.1362(a)-(d).]

First, as to service on Plaintiff McConnaughey, the proof of service (ROA 45) indicates moving attorney served the documents on “Rick Martin, Esq.” via email at: rick@angelcitylaw.com on 6/30/2022. However, Rick Martin is not Plaintiff’s attorney. Rather, Plaintiff’s Attorney is listed on the Complaint as “Joohan Song”. There are no documents in the Court file which indicate Plaintiff is now, or ever has been, represented by Attorney Rick Martin. Therefore, Plaintiff has not been properly served with this motion.

Second, while Attorney Cisneros’ Declaration establishes that the client's address was confirmed within the last 30 days and confirmed by “mail with return receipt requested”,  as required by CRC, rule 3.1362(d), he also declares that his client, Elite Enforcement Security Solutions, Inc., “has shut down business operations”.

Although the documents were purportedly mail served to Defendant Elite Enforcement Security Solutions Inc. C/O Alex Xavier Solario at “27472 Portola Parkway #205-108, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610”, it is unclear if Defendant was likely to have received the documents at that address if the Defendant has shut down business operations. (See ROA 39.) Although a separate proof of service indicates that “Alex Solario” was served by email with the relevant documents herein, since Alex Solario is not a party to this lawsuit, it is unclear to the Court why service upon him is relevant, or effectuates notice upon Elite Enforcement Security Solutions, Inc. (See ROA 43.)

Indeed, on the proposed Order lodged with the Court, counsel left the current address of the client blank. [See Order §6.] Therefore, it is unclear whether the client has been properly served and/or whether the Court has obtained the current address for an entity which has shut down its business operations.

For these procedural reasons, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.

Moving attorney to give notice.