DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV108817·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayPARTIES ARE TO APPEAR.

DOZIER vs MACKEY, INDIVIDUALLY, et al.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
19
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffREGINA GALE DOZIER
DefendantMACKEY

Attorneys

Matt Zumsteinfor Plaintiff

Ruling

25CV108817: DOZIER vs MACKEY, INDIVIDUALLY, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by REGINA GALE DOZIER (Plaintiff) CRS# 643127916732 in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 09/05/2026 Joscelyn Jones

On the unopposed Motion by Matt Zumstein to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff, PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR.

On his declaration filed and dated April 17, 2026, Mr. Zumstein checked the box indicating that he had personally served this motion on Plaintiff and would file a copy of the proof of service within five days. (See declaration, paragraph 3(a)(1).)

Mr. Zumstein never filed a proof of service demonstrating personal service of the motion on Plaintiff. Instead, on August 6, he filed a proof of service indicating that he had served the Renotice of motion on Plaintiff by overnight mail. However, Mr. Zumstein’s declaration failed to indicate how he confirmed that the address at which the motion was mailed to Plaintiff is in fact her address, as required. (See paragraph 3(b) of counsel’s Judicial Council form declaration.)

Mr. Zumstein shall appear to address this issue.

Mr. Zumstein shall contact Plaintiff, by phone, no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 8 to advise her of this tentative ruling. Mr. Zumstein shall also advise his client that Department 19 is located at 1221 Oak Street in Oakland, not 1125 Fallon Street as incorrectly indicated on the caption of all the moving papers.

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