KELLY HESKETT V. JACOB HESKETT
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 March 26, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
4. KELLY HESKETT V. JACOB HESKETT 25FL0732
On November 19, 2025, Counsel for Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. Petitioner was served with all required documents on December 11, 2025. The matter was originally set to be heard on February 19th, however the court noted that Respondent had not been served with the moving papers. The matter was continued to allow time for Respondent to be served.
On February 27th Petitioner was served with a Notice of Motion containing the new hearing date. Respondent was served on March 2nd.
Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on March 9th. It was served on March 10th.
Counsel states that there has been an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. After reviewing the filings, it does appear that there has been a breakdown in the relationship rendering effective representation unlikely. The request is granted. Withdrawal will be effective as of the date of filing the Proof of Service of the formal, signed order upon the client.
TENTATIVE RULING #4: THE MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IS GRANTED. WITHDRAWAL WILL BE EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE FORMAL, SIGNED ORDER UPON THE CLIENT.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.