Rashtchi vs. Madison Law, APC

The motion by Anthony G. Graham, Graham & Associates LLP, to withdraw as counsel by plaintiff Azin F. Rashtchi, is CONTINUED to June 26, 2026 at 9 AM.

First, proof of service of the moving papers is defective, as the sender’s electronic service address is missing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013b, subd. (b)(1).) The client filed a response, which arguably waives the defective proof of service on the moving papers (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 698), but the same is not true of defendants and/or defense counsel.

The Court also observes that the client’s response (ROA 23) is untimely (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b)), and does not have any proof of service.

Second, moving party failed to use all required forms, specifically the required declaration (form MC-052), or the required proposed order (form MC-053). (CRC 3.1362, subds. (c), (d), (e).)

Moving party shall re-serve the notice of motion; and shall file and serve a completed declaration (form MC-052), a completed proposed order (form MC-053), a notice of continuance, and a compliant proof of service of all of the foregoing, by May 29, 2026.