DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CECG00472·fresno·Probate·Motion to be relieved as counsel
Hearing todayDENIED

Hernandez v. Poindexter Nut Company, Inc.

Motion to be relieved as counsel

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHernandez
DefendantPoindexter Nut Company, Inc.

Ruling

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: Hernandez v. Poindexter Nut Company, Inc. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG00472

Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion:

Tentative Ruling:

To deny.

Explanation:

Motions to be relieved as counsel, among other things, must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil, Form MC-051. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(a).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil, Form MC- 052. (Id., rule 3.1362(c).) The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil, Form MC-053. (Id., rule 3.1362(e).)

Here, counsel submits none of the required forms, and perplexingly includes a memorandum which is expressly not required. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(b).) The forms are mandatory. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 8-19-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

7

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share