DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
2023-1365581·orange·Civil·Motion to be relieved as counsel
GRANTED

Morales vs. RCR Construction Services

Motion to be relieved as counsel

Hearing date
May 13, 2026
Department
N18
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffMorales
DefendantRCR Construction Services
DefendantMari Drewry
DefendantDevoted Insurance Company, LLC

Ruling

The Court is considering whether to continue this hearing so that Plaintiff’s counsel can file a revised declaration but will hear first from counsel at the hearing as to the status of service on the plaintiff.

2. 2023-1365581 Morales vs. Attorneys Brian Stewart’s and Louis Chao’s motions to be relieved RCR as counsel for Defendants Mari Drewry and Devoted Insurance Construction Company, LLC are granted. Services Upon the signing of the order, counsel shall serve said order on all parties, including Defendants. Brian Stewart’s and Louis Chao’s will be relieved as counsel of record for Defendants effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the clients and other parties.

The Court sets an OSC re: status of counsel for Devoted Insurance Company, LLC for June 11, 2026, at 9AM, in Department N18 as it is a corporation and cannot represent itself.

Counsel shall give notice of the ruling.

3. 2024-1443488 Employers Plaintiff Employers Assurance Company’s Motion for Order Assurance Vacating Dismissal of October 7, 2025, and Entering Dismissal Company vs. Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, is granted. Absolute Facility Plaintiff moves, under CCP sections 473(b) and 664.6, for an order Solutions Inc. vacating the dismissal without prejudice (ROA 19) and entering a dismissal under 664.6, whereby the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Plaintiff contends the parties entered into a settlement agreement on or about 8/19/25, and that the agreement includes a provision under CCP section 664.6 for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. (ROA 22, Exh. B at p. 2.) However, through Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, this case was dismissed without prejudice on 10/7/25. Plaintiff’s counsel attests that he failed to appear on 10/7/25, because he “mistakenly believed that [he] had taken care of everything after [he] appeared before this Court at a prior hearing.” (Aires Decl. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel further attests that he has “redoubled [his] attention to calendaring” and “instructed [his] calendar staff to send text alerts so [they] do not have a similar event in the future.” (Aires Decl. at ¶ 6.)

Legal Standard

CCP section 473(b) provides for relief that is “mandatory” or relief that is “discretionary.” Where, as here, the motion is timely and is “accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

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.

Source

Share