Motion to be relieved as counsel
“A default judgment may be improper against one of several codefendants if the other has raised defenses which, if proven, would establish the nonliability of the defaulting defendant.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2026 Update) ¶ 5:263.) “If it appears that the defaulting defendant’s liability is dependent upon the answering defendant being held liable, no default judgment is proper.” (Id., ¶ 5:264, citing Adams Mfg. & Engineering Co. v. Coast Centerless Grinding Co. (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 649, 655.)
“Similarly, no default judgment can be taken where several defendants are sued on a joint liability, and one of them answers asserting defenses which would exonerate the defaulting defendant from such liability.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2026 Update) ¶ 5:266, citing Mirabile v. Smith (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 685, 689.)
Here, the complaint and moving papers appear to show that liability of La Habra Villa is dependent upon defendant Bok Senior Hotel, Inc. dba Bok Senior Hotel (Bok Senior Hotel) being held liable. The complaint does not allege misconduct specifically by La Habra Villa. Rather, La Habra Villa is sued as a doe defendant. The complaint alleges Doe Defendants 1 through 10, which includes La Habra Villa, “were the owners, operators, administrators, licensees, and supervisors of BOK SENIOR HOTEL and these individuals each ratified, authorized and/or directed the conduct as hereinafter described and alleged at BOK SENIOR HOTEL, and its respective agents and employees, and are therefore vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of these co-Defendants, their agents, and employees.” (Compl., ¶ 7.)
The evidence submitted by Plaintiffs all relates to the allegedly negligent care and treatment of decedent Peter Eymert at Bok Senior Hotel. Bok Senior Hotel filed an answer to the complaint in which it denied generally and specifically each and every allegation of the complaint and asserted twenty affirmative defenses. (ROA 167.) Trial in this matter is set to commence on October 5, 2026.
As it appears liability of La Habra Villa is dependent upon Bok Senior Hotel being held liable, the Court finds it appropriate to defer default judgment as to La Habra Villa until after trial of the other defendants.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Accordingly, the motion for separate judgment is DENIED.
Counsel for Plaintiffs shall give notice. 11 Reyes v. O/C General Motors, LLC 12 Southeast The motion to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Ramher Bank v. Lomingkit filed by attorney Nicholas Saranto is DENIED WITHOUT Lomingkit PREJUDICE.
Moving counsel failed to file the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (form MC-052) and Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (form MC-053) as required. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(c), (e).) In addition, there is no proof of service filed showing Plaintiff’s counsel and client Ramher Lomingkit were served with the motion, declaration, and proposed order as required. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(d).)
Moving counsel shall give notice of this ruling. 13 Perea vs. Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by attorneys at Easton Manos & Easton, LLP (“Attorneys”), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Shelby Perea (“Client”). The motion is GRANTED.
Attorneys have complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1362, and filed and served forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC- 053 on Client and on the other parties in this action. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Client. As such, the court GRANTS the motion.
The court notes the order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file with the court a proof of service showing the signed orders granting the motion is served on Client. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.
Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21