Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
23CV013862: COOPER vs MUELLER, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
23CV013862: COOPER vs MUELLER, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16D
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel is ordered to notify the client and opposing counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event the client or opposing counsel appear without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
Counsels motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Jill Annette Cooper is dropped for defective service as there is no proof of service in the Courts file showing that Counsel served Plaintiff with the instant motion. In this regard, the Court notes that Counsel has filed the required, mandatory judicial council forms, including a declaration in which Counsel avers that he has served his client by mail at his clients last known address. However, such an averment in a declaration does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.
Moreover, the notice of motion and accompanying the declaration in support (both of which are on the mandatory judicial council form) indicate that the hearing date on this motion is March 2, 2027. However, on July 29, 2027, the Court (Judge Blizzard) granted counsels ex parte application for order shortening time setting hearing for this motion on todays date (August 11, 2026). Yet, there is no proof of service indicating that Counsel served his client with an amended notice of motion, nor with notice of the order granting counsels ex parte application.
While Counsel has included with his declaration an email purporting to provided notice to the client, Counsel has filed no proof of service indicating that the client was properly served such that the Court may conclude that Counsels client was properly noticed that Counsels motion is being heard on this date. Further, Counsel cannot cure this defect (assuming Counsel had timely served the motion) given that no proof of service for this motion can be filed at this late juncture. (CRC Rule 3.1300(c) [[p]roof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing].)
For all of the above reasons, this motion shall be DROPPED due to defective service of
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV013862: COOPER vs MUELLER, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16D
notice which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider this motion. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)
While this motion is dropped, it is without prejudice to moving counsel filing and serving a properly noticed motion on his client and on the parties who have appeared in this action (and timely filing the requisite proofs of service with the Court). However, the Court notes that given that trial in this matter is currently set for September 14, 2026, seeking withdrawal at such a late juncture may prejudice the client such that Counsel may be first required to seek and obtain a trial continuance to avoid such prejudice (there presently appearing to be such a motion on calendar in Dept. 17A). Alternatively, nothing prevents Counsel and the client from agreeing to a substitution providing for the clients self-representation or for new counsel to substitute into this matter.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.