Motions to be Relieved as Counsel
Collision, Ryan Dale and Wendy Correa. No opposition has been filed. The proof of services for the “request” show service of a “proposed” supplemental injunction. It is unclear if the “proposed” documents served are the same as the documents filed with the Court. Additionally, the “proposed” supplemental injunction was served on May 26, 2026 but the current request was not filed until June 30, 2026. There is insufficient evidence to show that the Defendants were given notice of the current request and hearing date. The Court denies the motion due to lack of proper service.
Additionally, the request is unsupported by any evidence. No declaration was filed. The Court is without any evidence to find that the issuance of an injunction would be proper under the circumstances. The Court further notes that the request fails to provide any authority upon which it is based. In addition to the procedural defects noted above, the Court denies the motion on the merits due to lack of evidence and authority.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the denial.
WESLEY VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL. CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0207455 Tentative Ruling on Motions to be Relieved as Counsel: Asher Y. Hoffman from Law Offices of Asher Hoffman, APC moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Kathryn Wesley. As a preliminary matter, two separate Motions to be Relieved as Counsel were filed on 26, 2026.
CRC Rule 3.1362 provides the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel. In particular, CRC 3.1362 requires the use of specific mandatory Judicial Council forms for the Notice and Motion (MC-051) and Supporting Declaration (MC-052). Both forms and the proposed Order (MC-053) must be served on the client and all parties who have appeared in the case at either the current address or the last known address that has been confirmed within thirty days. CRC 3.1362(d). The first motion is the MC-051 and MC-052 filed separately.
The MC-053 is lodged. A Proof of Service was filed on June 26, 2026 indicating that the MC-051 was personally served on Plaintiff on June 25, 2026. The second filing has the MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 all stapled as one packet along with a Proof of Service indicating electronic service on Plaintiff and Defendants on June 24, 2026. While Defendants can be served electronically through counsel, there is no indication in the file that Plaintiff has agreed to accept electronic service. Plaintiff must expressly agree to accept electronic service directly on Plaintiff, as opposed to service through counsel, in order for electronic service to be valid.
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?”
The motions are DENIED without prejudice. The Court cannot modify the proposed Orders submitted. Plaintiff’s counsel is to prepare the Orders. The Court confirms the review hearing on Monday, September 28, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63.
10