July 6, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 6 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 3 23-CIV-00926 CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL

CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ ROGER KIRNOS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. JASON M. RICHARDSON

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed motion of Jacob Cutler and Knight Law Group to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Catherine Rodriguez is denied without prejudice for lack of proof that the motion was properly served on plaintiff and all other parties who have appeared in the action. However, if counsel (provides notice) and appears and provides proof (that it has also filed in advance of the hearing) that plaintiff and all other parties who have appeared in the action received proper notice of today’s hearing, the court will grant the motion.

The Proof of Service attached to the notice of motion indicates the moving papers were served electronically and by personal service. With respect to the electronic service, the POS indicates it was accomplished via the Case Anywhere Service System pursuant to a ruling in Sacramento Superior Court Case No. JCCP 4924. However, the record in this case does not indicate that it is part of the coordinated action.

To the extent the POS also indicates the moving papers were personally served, it states only that the declarant caused the documents to be sent to a court services provider to be personally served. There is no declaration from the person who actually accomplished the service indicating how and when it occurred.

Furthermore, the motion was originally set for hearing on January 25, 2027. It was advanced to the current date by an Order Shortening Time. To date, there is no proof that the Order Shortening Time was served on plaintiff.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.