Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
avoid such, please log in and test your equipment in advance of the hearing. Also, if technological or audibility issues arise during the proceeding, please call (657) 622-5908.
All remote video participants shall comply with the court’s “Guidelines for Remote appearances”, found at https://www.occourts.org/system/files/guidelinesforremoteproceedings.pdf.
IN-PERSON: Parties preferring to appear in-person for a law and motion hearing may do so, consistent with Section 367.75 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Orange County Local Rule 375.
PUBLIC ACCESS: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings.
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.
July 10, 2026
# Case Name 1 Nguyen vs. County Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record of Orange The court DENIES without prejudice the unopposed Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff DANG HAI NGUYEN, filed by attorneys BRIAN MICHAEL JACOBSON and WILSHIRE LAW FIRM.
The motion is unopposed and most of the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court appear to have been met, including submitting the required form papers (e.g., Notice of Motion, Declaration, Proposed Order).
The motion is nonetheless defective:
Insufficient information is provided regarding the client’s last known address. Requisite facts are not provided showing that the client’s last known address was confirmed as current within 30 days before the filing of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The moving papers merely conclude that the client’s last known
address was confirmed “through an assets search which was ran on the Plaintiff on May 4, 2026.” (Mov. Decl. MC- 052 [ROA 22], at ¶ 3(b)(1)(d).) The court finds counsel’s hearsay statement that Plaintiff’s current residence “was confirmed by a private investigator who assisted in locating Plaintiff on May 4, 2026” to be insufficient. (See Faridani Decl. [ROA 24] at ¶ 1.)
It’s also unclear whether the client was served with both declarations filed in support of the motion (i.e., ROAs 22 and 24). The Proof of Service filed on 6/17/26 [ROA 26] does not show that the client was served with the Declaration of Manya Faridani [ROA 24].
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?”
The Proofs of Service filed indicate insufficient notice. Moving attorneys filed a proof of service showing that the client was served by U.S. mail on 6/17/26. (ROA 26.) Section 1005(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure extends the 16-court-day-notice-period by five calendar days when notice is served by mail. As such, if serving by mail, the client should have been served no later than 6/11/26. The file does not contain any proof of service showing such.
Further, it appears that the motion was also untimely served on Defendant COUNTY OF ORANGE. The defendant filed and electronically served its Answer on 6/15/26, which is a couple of days before the instant motion was filed. A Proof of Service was recently filed on 6/30/26, showing that the Defendant was served with some documents related to the motion to be relieved as counsel via electronic mail on 6/30/26. Service should have occurred much earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).)
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving attorney to give notice.
2 Moser vs. Limai Motion for Attorney Fees Montessori Academy Cypress, The court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ LLC fees and costs after trial.
3