Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 11/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874- 2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

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

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 11/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 54

Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Marry Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is DROPPED from calendar due to defective service of notice which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider this motion. (See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-511.)

It appears that the motion papers were served on Plaintiff by mail at Plaintiff’s 4719 50th Ave., Unit 44 address. However, counsel’s declaration, which as discussed in more detail below was not on the mandatory judicial council form, indicates that this is no longer Plaintiff’s current address. Indeed, counsel declares that:

Since the summer of 2023, our office has diligently tried to make contact with Ms. Martinez, including sending letters, calling her, and going to her last known address located at 4719 50th Ave., Unit 44, Sacramento, CA repeatedly. Each time we went to the address, no one answered and we received no response to the notes we left on the door.

(Declaration of David Elder [“Elder Decl.”], ¶ 2.)

Counsel further declares that his office has asked Plaintiff’s neighbors and brother for a new

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 11/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 54

address or phone number for Plaintiff, but that they were not successful. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Finally, counsel avers that:

We hired a private investigator to obtain new contact information. The private investigator provided 13 possible new address [sic]. On July 18, 2025, we mailed letters to all 13 addresses. We have not received a response.

(Id. at ¶ 6.)

Therefore, given counsel’s declarations, the Court is unable to conclude that service of the moving papers on Plaintiff’s former 4719 50th Ave., Unit 44 address constitutes adequate service of notice. Where proper service by mail or by email cannot be accomplished, the moving papers must be served on the Clerk of the Court but this did not occur. (See, Code Civ. Proc. §1011(b)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.252, 3.1362(d).) Thus, even if it were true that counsel is unaware of the Plaintiff’s current address, service remains defective and this matter must be dropped.

Additionally, counsel failed to file and serve a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052) as required by California Rule of Court rule 3.1362(c). This requirement is mandatory. (Cal. Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (c) [“The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052).” [emphasis added].) Instead, counsel submitted a declaration which was not on the required form. Thus, even if counsel had properly served Plaintiff with this motion, the motion would be denied for failure to file and serve a declaration on the mandatory judicial counsel form.

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact their client and opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact their client and/or opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.