DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
22-01267792·orange·Civil·Civil
CONTINUED

Duarte vs. Siegel-Foigelman

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Hearing date
May 14, 2026
Department
C33
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Other

Attorneys

David E. Outwater(Outwater & Pinckes, LLP)for Plaintiff
Cathleen L. Mulligan(Outwater & Pinckes, LLP)for Plaintiff

Ruling

5 22-01267792 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Duarte vs. Siegel- The motion of attorneys David E. Outwater and Cathleen L. Mulligan Foigelman from Outwater & Pinckes, LLP to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Noel Duarte is CONTINUED to _______.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subdivision (d) requires that: “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.”

Although the declaration in support of the motion states client was served with the moving papers by mail, the proof of service filed on 3/17/26 does not show moving papers were served on client. (ROA 614)

Moving attorneys are to serve all moving papers in compliance with Rule 3.1362, subdivision (d) and file a proof of service no later than 5 court days prior to the continued hearing.

Moving attorneys to give notice.

6 24-01441602 Motion for Order Authorizing Substituted Service

Hoang vs. EMPIRE Plaintiff Anh Duc Hoang’s Motion for Order Authorizing Substituted HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. Service of Defendant Empire Health Systems, Inc. to California Secretary of State is GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves for an order pursuant to Corporations Code section 1702 permitting Plaintiff to effectuate service of process on Defendant by serving the office of the California Secretary of State.

Corporations Code section 1702, subdivision (a) provides, “If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been designated, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation in the manner provided in subdivision (a), (b) or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of Section 416.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State's office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing such service. Service in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.” (Corp. Code, § 1702, subd. (a) [emphasis added].)

The term “reasonable diligence” denotes “a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his

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