Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2017-00962787, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Motion No. 1:
Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Melissa Cicello (Motion), filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 244, is DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (d)(2), which states in part, “If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” The declaration of Mark M. Higuchi, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 236, states, “The instant motion was served on all Defendants by email, and personal service.” (Higuchi Decl., ¶ 6.)
Moving Counsel does not provide a declaration that the electronic service address for the client was the client’s current electronic service address, and the court’s file does not show the filing of a proof of service demonstrating personal service.
Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Melissa Cicello, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 244, without prejudice.
Moving Counsel is to give notice.
Motion No. 2:
Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Complete Medical Management, Inc. (Motion), filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 246, is DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (d)(2), which states in part, “If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” The declaration of Mark M. Higuchi, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 242, states, “The instant motion was served on all Defendants by email, and personal service.” (Higuchi Decl., ¶ 6.)
Moving Counsel does not provide a declaration that the electronic service address for the client was the client’s current electronic service address, and the court’s file does not show the filing of a proof of service demonstrating personal service.
Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Complete Medical Management, Inc., filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 246, without prejudice.
Moving Counsel is to give notice.
Motion No. 3:
Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to William R. Edwards, D.C. (Motion), filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 248, is DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (d)(2), which states in part, “If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” The declaration of Mark M. Higuchi, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 240, states, “The instant motion was served on all Defendants by email, and personal service.” (Higuchi Decl., ¶ 6.)
Moving Counsel does not provide a declaration that the electronic service address for the client was the client’s current electronic service address, and the court’s file does not show the filing of a proof of service demonstrating personal service.
Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to William R. Edwards, D.C., filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 248, without prejudice.
Moving Counsel is to give notice.
Motion No. 4:
Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Traci Edwards (Motion), filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 250, is DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (d)(2), which states in part, “If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” The declaration of Mark M. Higuchi, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 238, states, “The instant motion was served on all Defendants by email, and personal service.” (Higuchi Decl., ¶ 6.)
Moving Counsel does not provide a declaration that the electronic service address for the client was the client’s current electronic service address, and the court’s file does not show the filing of a proof of service demonstrating personal service.
Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Traci Edwards, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 250, without prejudice.
Moving Counsel is to give notice.
Motion No. 5:
Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Lien Solutions, LLC (Motion), filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 252, is DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (d)(2), which states in part, “If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” The declaration of Mark M. Higuchi, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 234, states, “The instant motion was served on all Defendants by email, and personal service.” (Higuchi Decl., ¶ 6.)
Moving Counsel does not provide a declaration that the electronic service address for the client was the client’s current electronic service address, and the court’s file does not show the filing of a proof of service demonstrating personal service.
Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Brown & Charbeneau) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel directed to Lien Solutions, LLC, filed on 7-21-22 under ROA No. 252, without prejudice.
Moving Counsel is to give notice.