Shoop, et al. vs. Building Solution Consulting, LLC, et al.

Defendant Erik Uribe's counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel is conditionally GRANTED on the terms set forth above. Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

Shoop, et al. vs. Building Solution Consulting, LLC, et al. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Moving Party: Defendant Erik Uribe's Counsel Responding Party: None Tentative Ruling: Conditionally Grant

BACKGROUND Defendant Erik Uribe's ("Defendant") counsel of record, attorney Sheri L. Valley of Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP ("Counsel"), moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION Counsel seeks to be relieved based on a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.

OPPOSITION No opposition was filed.

REPLY No reply was filed.

ANALYSIS Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required.¿ (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)¿ Counsel states that the instant motion is filed for primarily the following reason: "Defendant Erik Uribe previously entered into a written attorney-client agreement with the Law Firm of Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP (collectively referred to as "Counsel"), dated March 9, 2026. Counsel now seeks to withdraw from representation in this action due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Defendant Erik Uribe refuses to sign Substitution of Attorney form." (MC-052.)

The Court finds this is a valid reason to withdraw as counsel. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4).) Therefore, the motion is granted. Counsel must serve the signed order (MC-053) within 10 days of the date of the order and file a proof of service confirming this service. Counsel will remain the attorney of record for Defendant until this proof of service is filed with the Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

RULING Defendant Erik Uribe's counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel is conditionally GRANTED on the terms set forth above. Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 26NNCV01349 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: T Jadira Reyes-Lopez, et al. vs Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., et al. Application for Order Admitting Joseph A. Casteel Pro Hac Vice Moving Party: Defendants Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Wingmen V, LLC Responding Party: None Tentative Ruling: Grant

BACKGROUND On July 22, 2026, Defendants Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Wingmen V, LLC ("Defendants") moved for an order granting the application for appearance pro hac vice by Joseph A. Casteel ("Casteel"). No opposition was filed.

ANALYSIS I.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of an application fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not employed or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities, in the State of California. An active licensee of the State Bar of California must also be associated as attorney of record.

The application must state: (1) the applicant's residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)

II.

Discussion

Applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice must contain the facts specified in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d). Casteel's verified