ARMANDO VALDES PENALOZA, et al. vs OLIVIA CASTANEDA, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 311) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT 311 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling 25STCV09825 ARMANDO VALDES PENALOZA, et al. vs OLIVIA CASTANEDA, et al. | September 3, 2026 8:30 AM | | | NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION OF LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL F. JIMENEZ TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL.

RULING: The Court conditionally grants both Motions. On or before September 21, 2026, moving counsel shall lodge updated proposed orders as to changed hearing dates, and a Proof of Service showing service on Defendants and the Clerk of Court. Upon receipt of the above, the Court intends to complete, sign and file the Form Order. The Court schedules a Non-Appearance Case Review on September 23, 2026. Law Office of Daniel F. Jimenez to give notice.

ANALYSIS: By two Motions, filed July 20, 2026, counsel moves to be relieved as attorney of record for each Plaintiff, by declaring, in each form Declaration, at paragraph 2: "After several attempts to communicate with Plaintiff, Armando Valdez Penaloza, there has been a breakdown of communication with the client and breakdown of the attorney client relationship. Counsel has been unable to contact Plaintiff."

Here, the form notices, declarations, and proposed orders, sufficiently comply with the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel, except for the rescheduled hearings. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

Further, moving counsel's declarations show a cognizable ground for withdrawal: The client by conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively (e.g., noncooperation or noncommunication). (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4). Cf. Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1020 ["We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's implicit finding rejecting the contention that respondents' lack of cooperation justified appellants' withdrawal."].)

Additionally, no opposing document is filed in order to show any prejudice caused by attorney withdrawal. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(d); Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197.)

However, the Motions are not accompanied by any Proofs of Service. On August 17, 2026, the Clerk only served notice of the new hearing dates on Defendants. Further, there is no Proof of Service on the Clerk filed. If the client's address remains unknown, then Code of Civil Procedure section 1011, subdivision (b) requirements can be satisfied by serving the Court Clerk. (CRC Rules 3.1362(d) and 3.252(a).)

Therefore, the Court tentatively grants both Motions, on the conditions that moving counsel serves proposed Form Orders stating updated hearing dates, and a proof of service of the documents upon Defendants and the Clerk of Court.

Case Number: 26STCP02927 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: 311 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling 26STCP02927 NORAYR AVAGYAN vs STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. | September 3, 2026 8:30 AM | | | NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND APPOINTMENT OF