Motion to be relieved as counsel
053 on Client and on the other parties in this action. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Client. The motion is GRANTED.
The court notes the order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file proof of service of the ruling on Client. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.
Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
2. Taghavi v. Khanaman 24-1436503 The motion by attorney Pasha Vafaei to be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs Azam Firouzfar and Hossein Taghavi is DENIED, for the reasons set forth herein.
First, there is no mention of the date, time or location of the hearing in either the notice of motion or declaration.
Second, there is no proof of service for the motion.
Third, there is no proposed order. Rule 3.1362(d) requires that “the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case.”
Fourth, counsel’s declaration regarding service is insufficient. Rule 3.1362(d)(1) requires that “If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.”
Counsel states that he mailed notice to the clients at the last known address but that he has been “unable to confirm that the address is current or to locate a more current address for the client.” (Declaration at Para. 3(b)(2).) However, counsel has failed to explain what “reasonable efforts” were made to determine the clients’ addresses.
The motion is therefore DENIED.
Attorney Pasha Vafaei is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
3. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v. Eckburg 17-922905 Before the Court is the unopposed Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement filed by Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Caren Eckburg (“Defendant”). As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
On 06/18/2026, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to 07/23/2026, and ordered Plaintiff to file and serve, no later than nine court days before the continued hearing date, a supplemental
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?”