Elizabeth Ordorica, et al. v. Saleh Shafik, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 730) August 21, 2026 DEPARTMENT 730 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

California County of Los Angeles Department 730 ELIZABETH ORDORICA, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. SALEH SHAFIK, et al., Defendants | Case No.: |

| Hearing Date: | August 20, 2026 | | | [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL |

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Ordorica ("Elizabeth") and Antonio Ordorica ("Antonio") entered into a contract with Defendants Shafik Saleh ("Saleh") and Saleh's Palace ("SP") for event planning services, including reservation of a location. Defendants allegedly breached the contract by failing to provide a party location. Plaintiffs sued Defendants for three causes of action, including breach of written contract.

On April 8, 2026, Plaintiffs' attorney, Jason E. Guerra, filed this instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. No opposition has been filed to date.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

III. DISCUSSION

Counsel did not file MC-052 and MC-053 forms as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1362. As counsel failed to comply with all requirements for the requested relief, the Court denies the motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is therefore DENIED. Counsel is ordered to give notice.

DATED: August 20, 2026 __________________________ Hon. Alexander C.D. Giza Judge of the Superior Court

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

* Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.

* If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at [email protected] with the Subject line "SUBMIT" followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel's contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

* Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

* If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Case Number: 25STCV15982 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: 730 Superior Court of