Motion to be relieved as counsel
$547.50 for filing the Complaint, service of process of the summons and complaint upon Defendant FCA, only, and filing 2 proofs of service. Defendant contends all other costs should be disallowed.
The court subtracts a total of $234.80 for: (1) service on Dealer and vague monthly “client portal fees,” and (2) Plaintiffs claim of $126.50 for eFiling fees paid to First Legal, which appears excessive as all other eFiling fees were $28.75. Thus, the difference of $97.75 is subtracted.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ recoverable costs are $812.55 ($1,047.35 - $234.80).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall recover attorney’s fees of $1,960; and costs of $812.55.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
7 California Fair TENTATIVE RULING: Plan Association vs. Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel of Record Maxpro LLC Farzad Seyfnia moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Cross- Defendant EGL Motor, Inc. The motion is GRANTED. The order relieving counsel will be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the executed order upon all parties.
In Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, the court explained that: “A corporation is not a natural person. It is an artificial entity created by law and as such it can neither practice law nor appear or act in person. Out of court it must act in its affairs through its agents and representatives and in matters in court it can act only through licensed attorneys. A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona. (Citations omitted.)” (Id. at 898; see also Iannaccone v. Law (2nd Cir. 1998) 142 F.3d 553, 559 (holding that administrator of estate may not appear pro se on behalf of estate).)
Nevertheless, the ban on corporate self-representation does not prevent a court from granting a motion to withdraw as attorney of record even if it leaves the corporation without representation. (Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504 [“An attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation”].) “Such an order puts pressure on the corporation to obtain new counsel or risk forfeiting important
rights through nonrepresentation.” (
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?”
An Order to Show Cause re: striking the Answer of EGL Motor, Inc. to the cross-complaint of Adrian Plesha and/or entering its default for failure to be represented by counsel is set for September 8, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department N16.
Moving counsel to give notice and file proof of service of such notice.
8 Fine Consulting TENTATIVE RULING: Services, Inc. vs. Alvarez Motion to Disqualify Counsel
Defendant Search Fund Accelerator, LLC (“SFA”) (Doe 1), moves to disqualify counsel Katie Charleston as trial counsel. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Statement of Law
California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3.7, provides: “A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless: [¶] (1) the lawyer’s testimony relates to an uncontested issue or matter; [¶] (2) the lawyer’s testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or [¶] (3) the lawyer has obtained informed written consent from the client.” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3.7(a), fn. omitted.)
“[T]he general rule is that an attorney may serve as both advocate and witness, testifying at trial concerning disputed issues, if the client has provided its informed written consent.” (Geringer v. Blue Rider Finance (2023) 94 Cal.App.4th 813, 822.) The reasoning behind the rule requiring informed consent is explained in People v. Donaldson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 916, 927–928: “‘If a lawyer is both counsel and witness, he becomes more easily impeachable for interest and thus may be a less effective witness. . . .
An advocate who becomes a witness is in the unseemly and ineffective position of arguing his own credibility. The roles of an advocate and of a witness are inconsistent; the function of an advocate is to advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state facts objectively.’” (People v. Donaldson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 916, 927–928; see also Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209 [quoting People v. Donaldson].)