DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25-01471642·orange·Civil·General Civil
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Kowalczyk vs. Gracey

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice x 3

Hearing date
Jun 2, 2026
Department
C25
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEdward Kowalczyk
PlaintiffThe Fifth Veda, Inc.
DefendantGracey

Attorneys

Mitchell Schuster(Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC)for Plaintiff
Stacey Ashby(Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC)for Plaintiff
Milton Otto(Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC)for Plaintiff

Ruling

There is no proof of service showing service of any of the moving papers on the client. In addition, the submitted proof of service shows that only the declaration was served, and only on the opposing party. (See ROA 188, 191.) Further, the notice of motion and motion provide that Sean Dowsing and Bayan Salehi move to be relieved as counsel of record, but only a declaration by Sean Dowsing has been submitted. Due to the defects above, the motion to be relieved as counsel of record is DENIED, without prejudice. Moving attorney to give notice.

105 Kowalczyk vs. Gracey

25-01471642 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice x 3 The unopposed applications of attorneys (1) Mitchell Schuster, (2) Stacey Ashby, and (3) Milton Otto of Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Edward Kowalczyk and The Fifth Veda, Inc. are GRANTED. Moving attorneys met the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. Moving attorneys to give notice

106 Pacific Carpets, LLC vs. Panku, Inc.

22-01245791 Motion for Attorney Fees Defendants 2525 Main Apartment, LP (“2525 Main”); Panku, Inc.; ASD Capital Management, LP; and Assured Management, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) move for an order granting them attorney fees in the amount of $98,445.00 incurred in the appellate matters arising from the instant action against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Pacific Carpets, LLC pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.

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