DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIV2203564·marin·Civil·Motion to Relieve Counsel
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

Daniel Bissmeyer v. Koniku, Inc.

1) Motion - Relieve Counsel 2) Motion - Relieve Counsel

Hearing date
Jul 17, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDaniel Bissmeyer
DefendantOshiorenoya E. Agabi
DefendantKoniku, Inc.

Ruling

Counsel for Defendants Oshiorenoya E. Agabi and Koniku, Inc. A Delaware Corporation (“Defendants”), Inc, with personal service of papers upon Oshiorenoya Agabi, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. A long cause jury trial is set for October 20, 2026, and the court anticipates that there will be no further continuances.

Daniel Bissmeyer (“Plaintiff”) did not serve an Opposition to Defendants/Cross- Complainant. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the request. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); Local Rule Marin, Civil 2.8G.1.)

Counsel’s motion is therefore GRANTED in it’s entirely.

Counsel is to lodge the order.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

CV2203564

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are driving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens)

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