Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
30. Propose a date for a final accounting hearing. ¶ 16. Include a provision that all supporting papers shall be filed no later than 16 days prior to the hearing. Id.
31. Include a provision for the court’s continuing jurisdiction.
32. Indicate how aggrieved employees will be notified that judgment has been entered.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents and file a proof of service.
9 30-2023-01317634 Counsel Jose Garay of Jose Garay, APLC’s (“Counsel”) Lopez vs. Nutrition Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Oscar Garcia Corp., Inc. Lopez (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT a proposed order is provided to the court within five (5) days of this ruling. (CCP § 284(2).) Counsel has substantially complied with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1362.
However, counsel did not file a proof of service showing service on their client and on Defendant of a proposed order (Judicial Counsel Form MC-053), as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d), and did not lodge a proposed order with the court with their moving papers, as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).
IT IS ORDERED THAT Notice of Entry of Order and Proof of Service must be filed by Counsel. Counsel remains counsel for Plaintiff until Proof of Service upon Plaintiff is filed.
The court sets a status conference for August 19, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether Plaintiff intends to retain new counsel in order to proceed with this action, which includes a PAGA claim. “PAGA authorizes ‘an aggrieved employee,’ acting as a proxy or agent of the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), to bring a civil action against an employer . . .” (Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, 1113
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?”
“[P]ersons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings but may not ‘practice law [for another] in this State unless [they are] active member[s] of the state bar.'” (Drake v. Superior Ct. (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 1826, 1830.) Thus, Plaintiff cannot proceed in a PAGA action in pro per.
Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
10 30-2019-01108860 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Kaiser Foundation Health Long Beach Memorial Plan, Inc.’s (“Kaiser”) Motion to Seal Confidential Portions of Medical Center vs. Trial Transcript and Confidential Trial Exhibits is Kaiser Foundation GRANTED. Health Plan, Inc.
“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(c).) “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) [t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) [a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d).)
“[T]rial courts may redact or seal particular documents to protect private information concerning an overriding privacy interest.” (In re M.T. (2024) 106 Cal. App. 5th 322, 336.) “[I]t is appropriate to seal certain records when those particular records contain highly sensitive . . . personal information about individuals,” including their medical information. (Id.)
Overriding interests may also include a substantial probability that movant’s business, competitiveness and privacy rights will be adversely affected if the record is not sealed. (See, e.g., McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc. (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 974, 988 [affirming order granting motion to seal documents containing trade secrets]; Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 579, 594 [“Although corporations have a lesser right to privacy than human beings and are not entitled to claim a right to privacy in terms of a fundamental right, some right to privacy exists.”]; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1286 [noting that sealing is appropriate where “information involves