Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV28489, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28489    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

 

 

victor duque ;

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

anthony bravo , et al.;

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

22STCV28489

 

 

Hearing Date:

April 11, 2025

 

 

Time:

10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

[tentative] Order RE:

 

motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                 Azuka L. Uzoh          

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Azuka L. Uzoh (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Victor Duque (“Plaintiff”) in this action.

The court finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel has not shown that they provided Plaintiff with sufficient notice of the hearing on this motion.

First, Plaintiff’s Counsel did not file a proof of service of the moving papers on Plaintiff as required, such that the court cannot verify (1) that Plaintiff was served with all the moving papers, and (2) the date and address of service.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (c) [“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing”].)

Second, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Counsel served Plaintiff with this motion by mail on the date that Plaintiff’s Counsel filed this motion (March 24, 2025), service on that date would not have provided Plaintiff with sufficient notice.  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (a)(2) [stating that the motion was served by mail].)

“[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing [on the motion].”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)¿ “However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California . . . .”¿ (Ibid.)¿¿ 

            Service of the moving papers by mail on March 24, 2025 would have provided Plaintiff with only 13 court days’ notice of the hearing on this motion, not the required 16 court days + 5 calendar days’ notice for service by mail.[1]  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  For a hearing date of April 11, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel was required to serve Plaintiff with the moving papers by March 19, 2025 for personal service or March 14, 2025 for service by mail.

            For the reasons set forth above, the court denies Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s filing a new motion that is accompanied by a valid proof of service of the moving papers on Plaintiff.

ORDER

            The court denies, without prejudice, Azuka L. Uzoh’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

            The court orders Azuka L. Uzoh to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 11, 2025

 

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



[1] March 31, 2025 was a court holiday.