Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
discovery motion must be accompanied by a separate statement. As a result, the motion is DENIED without prejudice and Defendants are granted 10 days leave to file new separate discovery motions.
Defendants to give notice. 100 Holmes vs. Palmer, 25-01477135 Defendants James Palmer and Susan Palmer’s Application For Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael R. Sklaire is GRANTED.
Defendants to give notice. 101 R.D. Olson Construction, Inc. vs. Pacific Coast Glazing, Inc., 26-01541399 Off-calendar. 102 RUME MEDICAL GROUP, INC. vs. UHC OF CALIFORNIA, 26-01550293 Defendants’ Motion to Allow Robert G. Keefe of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to Appear As Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.
Defendants to give notice. 103 Burton vs. Ford Motor Company, 25-01502626 Withdrawn. 104 Orange Tint, Inc. vs. Lim, 23-01367250 Counsel for Plaintiff Orange Tint, Inc. Moves for an order to be Relieved as Counsel. The motion is GRANTED.
The Court continues the Case management Conference from 8/20/2026 to 9/10/2026 at 1:30 p.m.
In addition, the Court sets a Status Conference re corporate representation of plaintiff for 9/10/2026 at 1:30 p.m.
The Order Relieving Counsel is effective upon service on the client of the Court’s Order granting the motion and advising of the next court date.
Moving Counsel to give notice. 105 Kim vs. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, 25-01515504 Counsel for Plaintiff Dan Young Tae Kim Moves for an Order to be Relieved as Counsel. The motion is DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion and supporting papers were not served on the client. Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.1362(d). Calling alone as set forth in the declaration is insufficient to meet the service requirement as the attorney is required to at least serve at the last known address.
Moving Counsel to give notice. 106 Maple Iron Grove LLC vs. Brown, 25-01455576 Counsel for Plaintiff Maple Iron Grove LLC Moves for an Order to be Relieved as Counsel. The motion is GRANTED.
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?”