Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2019-01076330, Date: 2023-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Moving Counsel’s (Kenneth I. Gross) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Da Jen Gao (Motion), filed 6-29-23 under ROA No. 255, is DENIED without prejudice.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d), states, “The 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. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. . . . [¶]  (2) 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 in support of the Motion (filed on 6-28-23 under ROA No. 238), states, “. . . communication is typically by WeChat.  In addition to mailing the moving papers to Plaintiff, they were also sent by WeChat and e-mail.”  Moving Counsel’s declaration filed on 7-19-23 under ROA No. 259, states, “In addition to serving the three herein Notices of Motion and Motions to be Relieved as Counsel; Declaration of Counsel in Support of the Motions; and the [proposed] Order thereon, by e-mail and WeChat, I attempted service at the last known physical addresses of my clients in China (as indicated on the Proof of Service), although I have only communicated with them in the past by WeChat or e-mail to Bin Sun.” (Gross Decl., ¶ 2.)

These declarations do not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2), because they do not state that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address.

Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Kenneth I. Gross) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Da Jen Gao, filed 6-29-23 under ROA No. 255, without prejudice.

Moving Counsel is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Moving Counsel’s (Kenneth I. Gross) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Shiming Liang Pang (Motion), filed 6-29-23 under ROA No. 247, is DENIED without prejudice.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d), states, “The 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. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. . . . [¶]  (2) 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 in support of the Motion (filed on 6-28-23 under ROA No. 236), states, “. . . communication is typically by WeChat.  In addition to mailing the moving papers to Plaintiff, they were also sent by WeChat and e-mail.”  Moving Counsel’s declaration filed on 7-19-23 under ROA No. 259, states, “In addition to serving the three herein Notices of Motion and Motions to be Relieved as Counsel; Declaration of Counsel in Support of the Motions; and the [proposed] Order thereon, by e-mail and WeChat, I attempted service at the last known physical addresses of my clients in China (as indicated on the Proof of Service), although I have only communicated with them in the past by WeChat or e-mail to Bin Sun.” (Gross Decl., ¶ 2.)

These declarations do not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2), because they do not state that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address.

Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Kenneth I. Gross) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Shiming Liang Pang, filed 6-29-23 under ROA No. 247, without prejudice.

Moving Counsel is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Moving Counsel’s (Kenneth I. Gross) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Bin Sun (Motion), filed 6-29-23 under ROA No. 245, is DENIED without prejudice.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d), states, “The 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. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. . . . [¶]  (2) 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 in support of the Motion (filed on 6-28-23 under ROA No. 234), states, “. . . communication is typically by WeChat.  In addition to mailing the moving papers to Plaintiff, they were also sent by WeChat and e-mail.”  Moving Counsel’s declaration filed on 7-19-23 under ROA No. 259, states, “In addition to serving the three herein Notices of Motion and Motions to be Relieved as Counsel; Declaration of Counsel in Support of the Motions; and the [proposed] Order thereon, by e-mail and WeChat, I attempted service at the last known physical addresses of my clients in China (as indicated on the Proof of Service), although I have only communicated with them in the past by WeChat or e-mail to Bin Sun.” (Gross Decl., ¶ 2.)

These declarations do not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2), because they do not state that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address.

Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Counsel’s (Kenneth I. Gross) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Bin Sun, filed 6-29-23 under ROA No. 245, without prejudice.

Moving Counsel is to give notice.