DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23-CIV-04082·sanmateo·Civil·Motion to be relieved as counsel
Hearing about 1 month agoGRANTED

SEILER, LLP VS. JASJIT MANGAT

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
11
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSEILER, LLP
DefendantJASJIT MANGAT

Attorneys

KATHRYN S. DIEMER(Diemer & Wei)for Plaintiff

Ruling

July 13, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 13 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM 23-CIV-04082 SEILER, LLP VS. JASJIT MANGAT LINE 4

SEILER, LLP KATHRYN S. DIEMER JASJIT MANGAT

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: KATHRYN S. DIEMER’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed motion of Kathryn Diemer and Diemer & Wei to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Seiler, LLP is granted. Pursuant to CRC 3.1362(e), the order does not become effective until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

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, Kathryn Diemer or her designee 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.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share