Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange
DEPT C20 TENTATIVE RULINGS
Judge Theodore Howard
The court will hear oral argument on all matters at the time notic ed for the hearing. If you would prefer to submit the matter on your papers without oral argument, please advise the clerk by calling (657) 622-5220. If no appearance is made by e ither party, the tentative ruling will be the final ruling. Rulings are normally posted on th e Internet by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing.
COURT REPORTERS WILL NO LONGER BE PROVIDED FOR TRIAL AND OTHE R HEARINGS WHERE LIVE EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED. IF A P ARTY DESIRES A COURT REPORTER FOR ANY HEARING INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LAW AND MOTION MATTERS, EX PARTE MATTERS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT PARTY TO PROVIDE ITS OWN COURT REPORTER. PARTIES MUST COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S POLICY ON THE USE OF PRO TEMPORE COURT REPORTERS WHICH CAN BE FOUND ON THE COURT’S WEBSITE AT: http://www.occourts.org/media/pdf/7-25- 2014_Privately_Retained_Court_Reporter_Policy.pdf
The Orange County Superior Court has implemented administrative orders, policies, and procedures noted on the Court’s website to address the limitations and restrictions presented during the COVID-19 pandemic at Civil Covid-19. Due to the fluid nature of this crisis, you are encouraged to frequently check the Co urt’s website at https://www.occourts.org for the most up to date information relating to Civil Operations.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all Unlimited and Complex pro ceedings may be conducted via Zoom or in person. On the date of your hearing click the Department C20 Link to begin the remote online check in/Zoom appearance process:
https://occourtsapp.occourts.org/aci/checkin-results’dept=C20
Date: July 30, 2026
#
1. Cheng v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing 25-1523342 The unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record, filed by attorney Tony Cara of CDLG, PC as to the representation of plaintiff Tiffany M. Cheng is GRANTED. Mr. Cara is to submit a new proposed order reflecting the currently pending dates for the Case Management Conference and the Demurrer.
The Order will become effective upon filing of a proof of service reflecting service of the resulting Order on the client.
Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
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?”
Code of Civil Procedure §1013a requires the proof of service to be supported by an affidavit. Code of Civil Procedure §2013a sets forth the requirements for an affidavit, including a requirement that the signer certify that the statements are made “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.” Here, the proof of service was executed by Li Yang in New York and does not comply with the foregoing Code sections.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Attorney Tianyu Ju is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
3. Raintree Del Prado LLC v. Sheikan 24-1394670 Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by attorneys at Downtown LA Law Group (“Attorneys”), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant/cross-complainant Tatijana N. Sheikhan (“Client”). The motion is GRANTED.
Attorneys have complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1362, and filed and served forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC- 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.
4. Zeng v. Reitzfeld 24-1383451 Before the Court at present is the Motion to Bifurcate filed by Defendant Donald K. Reitzfeld (“Reitzfeld”) and opposed by plaintiffs John Fei Zeng and Jia Chun Yuan (“Plaintiffs”). The motion is DENIED, without prejudice.
Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that the court may order certain issues tried before others “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)
Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) provides: “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by