Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV33484, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV33484    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 53

Rodgers v. Roth  19STCV33484  

Ex Parte Application 1/30/25

The court finds that plaintiff’s attorney Paige Gold has not satisfied the requirement of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, subdivision (c), that an applicant for an ex parte order must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.

In addition, the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil, dated January 28, 2025 (attached to plaintiff’s attorney’s ex parte application) is also defective because (1) in section 3.a(2), it states that the attorney has served the client by mail at the client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with the declaration, but the declaration is dated only two days earlier (on January 28, 2025), and thus only two days’ notice was give to the client (plaintiff), and (2) section 3.b has not been completed.        

The court therefore denies the ex parte application, without prejudice to plaintiff’s attorney filing a motion to be relieved as counsel that complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 284 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1962, on regular notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

To give plaintiff’s attorney time to file and serve a motion to be relieved as counsel on regular notice, to file a substitution of attorney form, or to sufficiently recover and to resume and complete the trial that was commenced on January 7, 2025, the court orders that the trial is continued to March 4, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.  The court puts the parties and counsel on notice that, whether or not plaintiff’s attorney is relieved as counsel for plaintiff by March 4, 2025, the court expects all parties and counsel to be prepared to resume the trial on that day. 

The court orders plaintiff’s attorney Paige Gold to give notice of this order to plaintiff and defendants.