Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
In opposition, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he Fourth Cause of Action incorporates the underlying allegations and alleges that, as a result of FATCO’s negligence in 2006 and First American’s subsequent refusal to issue a release, Plaintiff was forced to bring this action to clear his title.” (Oppn at 17:13-16.) As Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a negligence cause of action against Defendants, the tort of another claim also fails. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Plaintiff shall have 15 days leave to amend the complaint. Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §452(h). (See also, Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265.) Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are DENIED. There is no indication that the documents are court records, or any other category of documents judicially noticeable pursuant to the Evidence Code. Rather, the documents are described in the request as “business records of First American.”
Defendants to give notice
104 Saucedo vs. Preferred Roofing LLC
25-01494949 1. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Joshua I. White and Preetpal S. Toor seek an order relieving them as counsel of record for Plaintiff Rodrigo Serrato Saucedo. Motions to be relieved as counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) are governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.
All the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 have been met, and the Declaration of Attorney Preetpal S. Toor appears to demonstrate good cause for granting the motion based on the allegations that: a) There has been lack of communication from the client; and b) There is an irreconcilable disagreement regarding case strategy and legal advice between the client and attorneys. Additionally, all required judicial counsel forms (MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053) relating to the notice of motion, declaration and proposed order have been utilized and seem to be properly served. [CRC 3.1362(a)-(d).]
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
However, it is unclear whether this Court has acquired knowledge of the Plaintiff Client’s address. When the motion was filed on 4/1/2026, Attorney indicated Plaintiff Client would be “personally served”. However, thereafter, documents were filed indicating that Plaintiff Client was served by mail at two different addresses. (ROAS 37, 39.) Although the “confirmation of last known address” portion of the declaration are left blank (ROA 27) it appears that a skip trace indicates 201 S MAGNOLIA AVE APT 43, ANAHEIM, CA 92804 is the most recent address for Plaintiff. (ROA 41.)
Declaration of Due Diligence (ROA 41) indicates that the server was not able to serve Plaintiff physically. As such, on 5/13/2026, Plaintiff Client was served by mail at two addresses:
1) 111 S HEARTWOODWAY, ANAHEIM, CA92801 2) 201 S MAGNOLIA AVE APT 43, ANAHEIM, CA 92804 (ROAs 37, 39) Counsel is ordered to appear and provide information to the Court as to Plaintiff Client’s last known address, and what steps (other than a skip trace), Counsel has taken to acquire that information. To the extent the Court is satisfied that it has acquired Plaintiff Client’s address, it will grant the motion 2. Case Management Conference
105 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. vs. LJT Holdings II LLC
25-01514141 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record John P. Swenson, Janae L. Hill, and Arden Burstein (“Moving Counsel”) move to be relieved as Counsel of Record for Defendant LJT Holdings II, LLC. 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. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the hearing date. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).) Although Moving Counsel provides that the moving papers were served on the client by mail, the proof of service attached to the moving papers does not reflect such service. Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of the moving papers on the client. Said proof of service