Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
24CV011507: TERRY vs FLORES, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.
If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver
24CV011507: TERRY vs FLORES, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D
and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel is ordered to notify the client and opposing counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event the client or opposing counsel appear without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
Counsels motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Alan Terry is dropped for defective service as there is no proof of service in the Courts file showing that Counsel served Plaintiff with the instant motion. In this regard, the Court notes that Counsel has filed the required, mandatory judicial council forms, including a declaration in which Counsel avers that he has served his client by mail at his clients last known address. However, such an averment in a declaration does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.
Moreover, on June 17, 2026 the Court issued a Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (the Notice) in which the Court continued the hearing on the pending motion to July 17, 2025. However, there is no proof of service indicating that Counsel served his client with an amended notice of motion, nor with the Notice. Indeed, Counsel has filed no proof that his client is aware that Counsels motion is being heard on this date.
For all of the above reasons, this motion shall be DROPPED due to defective service of notice which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider this motion. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) Further, Counsel cannot cure this defect by filing any proof of service (assuming Counsel had timely served the motion) given that no proof of service for this motion can be filed at this late juncture. (CRC Rule 3.1300(c) [[p]roof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing].)
While this motion is dropped, it is without prejudice to moving counsel filing and serving a properly noticed motion on his client and on the parties who have appeared in this action (and timely filing the requisite proofs of service with the Court). However, this may prove difficult given that trial in this matter is set for August 18, 2026.[1]
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV011507: TERRY vs FLORES, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D
Additionally, to the extent that Defendant has requested that the Court set an Order to Show Cause Hearing regarding dismissal for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute for July 15, 2026, such a request is DENIED as it is not properly before this Court.[2] To the extent Defendant seeks a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Defendant may proceed by noticed motionwhich, again, may prove difficult given the impending August trial date.
This ruling is without prejudice to the parties seeking a trial continuance in Department 17A.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
[1] In this regard, even if this motion was properly noticed and served on the client, the Court
would still have serious concerns granting the motion given that this motion was made just over 60 days prior to the current trial date. [2] While this request is denied as not properly before the Court, the Court observes that even if a
motion for failure to prosecute was properly noticed, Defendant has failed to provide any legal authority to support its argument that a plaintiffs failure to engage in settlement discussions amounts to a failure to prosecute the case.