GRANT & WEBER, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION vs STRAUCH, et al.

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

25CV012371: GRANT & WEBER, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION vs STRAUCH, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16D

hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

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 Reporter’s 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).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant Laura Strauch is DROPPED for defective service. Counsel filed two proofs of service in relation to this motion, one on February 17, 2026 and a second on May 13, 2026. The February 17, 2026 proof of service indicates only that counsel for Plaintiff was electronically served with the filings related to this motion and the May 13, 2026 proof of service indicates that only the following document was electronically served:

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA AIR-MAIL OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL TO PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Jonathan L. Subinfield, Esq. for Grant & Weber, Inc. and to Defendant, Laura Strauch.

Thus, neither of the filed proofs of service indicate that Defendant was served with all of the documents filed in support of this motion, including the Declaration in Support of the Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and the Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. Moreover, it is unclear what document the May 13, 2026 proof of service purports was served as there is no “Amended Motion” related to this hearing in the Court’s file. Accordingly, this motion must be dropped as defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012371: GRANT & WEBER, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION vs STRAUCH, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 16D

Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Further, counsel cannot cure this defect by filing any amended proof of service (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”].)

Moreover, the Court must also note the discrepancies in counsel’s declaration. In line 3(a)(2) of his declaration, counsel indicates that he served the client by mail at the client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers. (Declaration of Clinton Rooney [“Rooney Decl.”], line 3(a)(2).) Counsel then indicates that he confirmed the address is current “by other means” yet counsel also specifies that he “served the notice of motion by “electronic service” with a request that the client also confirm their mailing address. (Id., at ¶ 3(b)(1)(d).) To add to the confusion, counsel also declares that he has “been unable to confirm the address is current or locate a more current address for the client” making “several phone calls” and sending “several emails.” (Id., at ¶ 3(b)(2)(b), (e).)

If Counsel moves again to be relieved, Counsel should be prepared to explain how service on the client’s email address is proper service on the client pursuant to statute and rules of court. A motion to be relieved as counsel may be served on the client via mail at either the client’s current or last known address. The client’s address is considered “current” when it was successfully confirmed within 30 days before filing the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) “Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.” (Ibid.)

Service at the client’s last known address is proper only where counsel “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.” (Ibid. [emphasis added].) Further, where service is at the client’s last known address without verification, the notice must also be served on the client by delivering the papers to the clerk of court. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc. § 1011(b)(3).)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.