Sanchez vs. Viana

application shall not be granted.” [See CCP § 473(b).] Here, no proposed answer or other proposed pleading has been submitted with the Motion.

Therefore, Defense counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing with the proposed pleading. Upon receipt by the Court, the Court will GRANT the motion, vacate the 7/28/2025 default and vacate the default prove up hearing, and order the proposed pleading to be separately filed and served.

Moving party to give notice.

101 H&B Collision, Inc. vs. Collision Repair Tools LLC, 23-01345138

Arturo E. Matthews, Jr. (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as Counsel of Record for Defendants, Collision Repair Tools, LLC and Bryan Robaina.

In addition, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

Here, Moving Attorney has not lodged the required proposed order, nor do the proofs of service indicate service of the proposed order on the clients and opposing counsel. (See ROA 143, 145, 183.)

Accordingly, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Moving attorney may re-file the motion curing the above deficiencies and seek to advance the hearing by ex parte.

The moving attorney is to give notice.

102 Sanchez vs. Viana, 24-01412341

Daniel R. Sallus and Adam G. Carpinelli (“Moving Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Everardo Sanchez.

The motion is GRANTED.

The order relieving counsel will be effective upon counsel filing proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).)

Moving attorney to give notice. 103 James Bay Resources Limited vs. Lockett & Horwitz, 23-01313001

Off-Calendar. 104 Ju vs. Yeo, 23-01347065

Defendant JUNG MI YEO (“YEO”) will move the court for an order to stay the instant case during the adjudication of an earlier lawsuit pending in a different jurisdiction with identical claims, facts, and parties (“MOTION TO STAY”).

Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208 advises:

“When an action is brought in a court of this state involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court. In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.”

[Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215.]

Here, Defendant argues this case should be stayed while a dissolution case proceeds in Seoul, Korea between Plaintiff Sae Heung Ju and Defendant Jung Mi Yeo.

Based on Attorneys John A. S. Baik (defense counsel herein) and Jae Hoon Choi (Moving party’s attorney in Korea case) representations; and after considering the