Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV13074, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13074    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

 

VITALIY MAYZENBERG, et al.

 

                        Plaintiffs,

            vs.

JOHN RYAN, et al.

 

                        Defendants.

Case No.:

  22STCV13074

Hearing Date:

February 7, 2023

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

 

(2) MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

 

 

Vadim F. Frish of Frish Law Group, APLC (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendants and Cross-Complainants John Ryan (“Ryan”) and Ivette Danyra Burillo (“Burillo”).

            While Counsel has provided sufficient reason for withdrawal for the motions, the proofs of service filed with the motions do not indicate that Ryan and Burillo were served. Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivision (d), “[t]he notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case.”[1]

            In addition, Items 5 and 6 of the proposed orders for both motions are blank. 

Lastly, Item 2(a) of the Notice of Motion for both motions incorrectly lists “10:00 a.m.” after “Dept.”

Because of the issues identified above, the motions are denied without prejudice.

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this order.

 

DATED:  February 7, 2023                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

 


[1] The statement in counsel’s declaration that he “[c]onfirmed via email that motion was received by the client” does not suffice because, inter alia, it does not indicate that the Declaration and the Proposed Order also were “received by the client.”