Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2019-01076330 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2019-01076330, Date: 2023-08-08 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.)

The court’s 7-25-23 Minute Order stated, “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.”

On 7-27-23 under ROA No. 265, Moving Counsel filed another declaration which states in part, “The three Motions to be Relieved as Counsel, including the Declarations of Counsel and Proposed Orders were served on my clients electronically by serving Plaintiff Bin Sun at his e-mail addresses and his WeChat address. Bin Sun is the person I have communicated with during this case on behalf of all Plaintiffs, as they are all family members. [¶] The WeChat address I served the Motions and related papers to, is Mr. Sun’s current WeChat address, and his current electronic service address as of the filing of the Motions. This address was verified less than 30 days prior to filing the Motions when I received a WeChat message from Bin Sun, on June 5, 2023 from the WeChat address that I have always communicated with him at. That is the same WeChat address where the Motions, including the Declarations of Counsel and the Proposed Orders were served. [¶] I have received no communications from my clients since the June 5, 2023 WeChat from Bin Sun.” (Further Supplemental Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

The court finds that the Further Supplemental Declaration still fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2). Specifically, the portion of the Further Supplemental Declaration beginning with “[t]his address was verified less than 30 days prior” does not make clear that the WeChat message confirmed that the email address where moving attorney served the motion was accurate, or that Da Jen Gao authorized service by email.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.