Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2020-00017989-CU-PP-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023

08/11/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Petition - Partnership & Corporate governance Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00017989-CU-PP-CTL PETITION OF KRISTIN RYNER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Attorneys Donald Kula and Taylor Russell's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Sansay, Inc. is CONTINUED to September 1, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. to allow time for Defendant's counsel to cure certain defects. (ROA 95.) Defendant's attorney's initially filed their notice of motion, declaration, and proposed order for this motion on July 17, 2023 for hearing on September 1, 2023. (ROA 86, 87, 88.) Attorney Kula checked the box on the declaration indicating the client would be personally served with the motion papers and that a copy of the proof of personal service would be filed with the court at least five days before hearing.

(Decl. ¶ 3(a)(1); see Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1300(c).) However, no proof of service was ever filed as to these papers. As such, the court is unable to confirm whether the client was personally served with the moving papers, and whether any other party received service of the moving papers.

On July 31, 2023, the court granted Defendant's counsel's ex parte application for an order advancing the hearing date on this motion, and set hearing for August 11, 2023. (ROA 93.) The same day, Defendant's counsel filed an amended notice of motion along with a proof of service.

The July 31, 2023 proof of service is defective in several respects. First, it applies only to the amended notice of motion, so there is still no evidence before the court confirming Defendant and the other parties were properly served with all moving papers. Second, the proof of service indicates service was achieved by mail and email, contrary to counsel's declaration stating the client would be personally served. However, there is no evidence before the court indicating Defendant's counsel complied with court rules to first confirm the client's current mailing address. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1).) Third, the proof of service was made via a declaration under penalty of perjury 'under the laws of the State of Arizona,' which does not comply with Code requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1013a, 2009, and 2015.5.) Accordingly, the motion is continued to allow time for Defendant's counsel to file and serve amended moving papers. The court will grant an order shortening time on Defendant's counsel's deadline to file and serve the papers, and orders the papers to be filed and served on or before August 16, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003204  11