Masaoka vs. ALHV, LLC

All counsel and self-represented parties appearing remotely must check-in online through the court’s civil video appearance website at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.

Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5618 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.

NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.

# Case Name Tentative

1. 2025-1480066 Masaoka vs. Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, Esq. moves to be relieved as counsel for ALHV, LLC Plaintiff Mitsuko Masaoka (decedent via her successor in interest, Arther Masaoka).

In counsel’s declaration, she does not indicate that she served her client at the last known address. (See ROA 59, ¶ 3.a.) Counsel states she has been unable to confirm the client’s current address after mailing the motion papers to the last known address and calling the last known telephone numbers. (ROA 59, ¶ 3.b.)

Based on this, the Court has concerns as to whether the plaintiff received notice of this motion, and whether counsel used reasonable efforts to locate her client.

Approximately a month after this motion was filed, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Defendant Memorial Care Surgical Center, which begs the questing of whether counsel has since been able to communicate with her client after she filed this motion.