DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23-CIV-00446·sanmateo·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

TIFFANY WILLIAMS VS. RUDY ORITZ, ET AL

Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
2
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTIFFANY WILLIAMS
PlaintiffYHVONNA TRAVIS
DefendantRUDY ORITZ

Attorneys

Ruling

8/27/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 2 of 16

Case Title / Nature of Case

2:00 PM LINE 1 23-CIV-00446 TIFFANY WILLIAMS VS. RUDY ORITZ, ET AL

TIFFANY WILLIAMS IIAN N. ROSEN JANFAZA RUDY ORITZ

Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

TENTATIVE RULING:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The unopposed motion of Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiffs, Tiffany Williams and Yhvonna Travis, is GRANTED. Pursuant to CRC 3.1362(e), the order does not become effective until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the moving party shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Court directs the parties to San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) regarding the wording of proposed orders

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