DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV31512·la·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing todayThe Court will call this matter and inquire about the status of representation of Defendant Tade Golestanian by counsel.

Unknown v. Tade Golestanian

Inquiry into status of representation

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
514
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

DefendantTade Golestanian

Attorneys

Karo G. Karapetyan(Karapetyan Law Firm)for Defendant
Peter C. Bronstein(Law Office of Peter C. Bronstein)for Defendant

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 514) August 28, 2026 DEPARTMENT 514 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

The Court will call this matter and inquire about the status of representation of Defendant Tade Golestanian ("Defendant") by counsel. On December 22, 2025, Defendant filed an answer in this matter. The answer was signed by both Karo G. Karapetyan (of the Karapetyan Law Firm) and Peter C. Bronstein (of the Law Office of Peter C. Bronstein). On August 3, 2026, Defendant filed a substitution of attorney. On this document, Defendant's former legal representative is identified as Mr. Karapetyan, and Defendant is identifying as being self-represented going forward.

No substitution of attorney has been filed with regard to Mr. Bronstein. No motion to be relieved as counsel has been filed by Mr. Bronstein. As Mr. Bronstein has appeared as counsel for Defendant, has not been substituted out, and has not moved to be relieved, it appears to the Court that Mr. Bronstein may still represent Defendant. If Mr. Bronstein does not wish to continue to represent Defendant, then Mr. Bronstein may need to file a substitution of attorney or motion to be relieved. | Home -->)" -->

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