Celedonio Solorzano Arroyo v. [Unnamed Defendant]
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Motion type
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
(Chatsworth Courthouse: Dept. F47) August 26, 2026
Date: 8/26/26 Case #23CHCV02028 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Motion filed on 2/26/26. MOVING ATTORNEY: Joshua R. Kohanbash CLIENT: Plaintiff Celedonio Solorzano Arroyo RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Joshua R. Kohanbash as counsel for Plaintiff Celedonio Solorzano Arroyo in this action. RULING: The motion is granted.
On 2/26/26, attorney Joshua R. Kohanbash filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Celedonio Solorzano Arroyo in this action due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, including loss of communication with the client. The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 7/9/26. The proof of service for the motion indicates that the motion papers were mailed to the client at 13571 Rayen St., Pacoima, CA 91331 on 2/24/26 via United States mail. (See Proof of Service filed 2/26/26). No other party has appeared in the action.
Because the declaration filed in support of the motion indicates that the client was served by mail with the motion papers at the client's last known address, but did not state the address was confirmed within the 30 days before the motion was filed and there was no response to the motion by the client, the tentative ruling was to deny the motion without prejudice. (See Declaration, No.3.a.(2), b.(1); CRC 3.1362(d)(2)).
However, at the 7/9/26 hearing, the client/Plaintiff appeared and confirmed that his current address is 13571 Rayen Street, Arleta, CA 91311. (See 7/9/26 Minute Order). Therefore, the Court finds that the client had proper notice of the 7/9/26 hearing and grants the motion.
Case Number: 23CHCV02301 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 8/26/26 TRIAL DATE: 6/28/27 Case #23CHCV02301
Cited authorities
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?”