Motion of Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil
capacities of certain individuals responsible Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion persuasive in part. Plaintiff indicates having been genuinely ignorant of certain parties’ names and their responsibility for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. (Motion, 3:1-6.)
The Court finds this sufficient as to Alina Mahmood. However, the Court granted Plaintiff’s prior request to name Aditya Mahesh Dhere and Rohit Jiledar Singh as defendants Doe 1 and 2, respectively, on December 5, 2025. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Aditya Mahesh Dhere in place of Defendant Doe 1 and Rohit Jiledar Singh in place of Doe 2. The Court grants the motion as to Alina Mahmood. (Code Civ. Proc., § 474.) Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES in part.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to identify and name doe defendants. Alina Mahmood is substituted in place of Doe 3. The Motion is DENIED as to Aditya Mahesh Dhere and Rohit Jiledar Singh since those parties were previously added as Does 1 and 2 respectively on December 3, 2025. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
NAME: Saleh Khalil v. Christian Joel Munguia, et al. Motion of Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil
The Court GRANTS the m otion of Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil. Counsel must submit a revised proposed order with the with the future hearing information for the Court’s review and signature within five calendar days of this ruling. Counsel must then serve the signed order upon Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant, and file proof of service of same within five calendar days thereof. Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is an auto accident case. On April 18, 2025, plaintiff Saleh Khalil (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Christian Joel Munguia (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle. On April 8, 2026, Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil. The motion is unopposed.
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?”
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted, provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.) A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Shraibati Decl., ¶ 2.) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation also include the client’s conduct that “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.]? (Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).)
Counsel has also submitted the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on Judicial Council forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) Counsel further provided proof of service of the moving papers on counsel for Defendant and on Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s last known address, and demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to confirm Plaintiff’s address is current. (Shraibati Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b)(2); Proof of Service (4/8/26).)
The Court notes, however, that the next scheduled hearing information on the proposed order is outdated. (Proposed Order (4/8/26), ¶ 7, subd. (a).) The Court will order Counsel to submit a revised proposed order containing updated future hearing information.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the m otion of Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil. Counsel must submit a revised proposed order with the future hearing information for the Court’s review and signature within five calendar days of this ruling. Counsel must then serve the signed order upon Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant, and file proof of service of same within five calendar days thereof. Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
Case Number: 25PSCV03930 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: 6 CASE NAME: Consuel Esquivel Alcala, et al. v. General Motors LLC Defendant General Motors LLC?s Motion for Compliance and Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Defendant General Motors LLC?s motion for compliance and sanctions. Plaintiff Consuelo Esquivel Alcala must appear for her initial deposition within 15 calendar days of the Court’s order. The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $1,500.00 per Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2). Plaintiffs’ counsel must pay said monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 15 business days of the Court’s order. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a lemon law case. On October 30, 2025, plaintiffs Consuelo Esquivel Alcala (Consuelo)[1] and Daniel Alcala (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act breach of express warranty and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act breach of implied warranty.