Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
Plaintiffs’ fraud claims because there are no allegations explaining why anything the third parties said should be attributed to any Defendant. As discussed above, the statements are not intended to provide the basis of the fraud claim. Instead, they are intended to provide context to the relationship between the parties. Thus, the Court finds that they are not improper and the Motion to Strike paragraphs 86 and 91 is DENIED. The Court denies Defendants’ requests for judicial notice on the ground that the material is not relevant to the determination of the issues. (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422, 442-443.) Moving party to give notice.
104 Smart Solutions, Inc. vs. Magic Brush Car Wash, LP
24-01423896 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Bryan Theis/Theis Law Group, PC (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as Counsel of Record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Magic Brush Car Wash, LP. The Motion is CONTINUED to July 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Department C25. The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The proof of service indicates that two individuals were served with the moving papers: (1) Hagop “Jack” Kofdarali at 139 Radio Road, Corona, CA 92879, and (2) Scott G.
Nathan (via email), Law Offices of Scott G. Nathan, APC, 12241 Newport Avenue, Suite 100, North Tustin, CA 92705. (ROA 56.) It is not clear from the proof of service that the client, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Magic Brush Car Wash, LP, was served with the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order. The proof of
service does not indicate Hagop “Jack” Kofdarali’s relation to the client sufficient that show that service is proper upon this individual. As a result, the Court CONTINUES the motion to be relieved as counsel to July 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Department C25. Moving Attorney to file proof of service of the moving papers on the client. Said proof of service to be filed no later than nine (9) court days before the continued hearing date. In addition, Moving Attorney to lodge an updated proposed order reflecting the current trial date no later than nine (9) court days before the continued hearing date. The proposed order must be lodged with the court with the moving papers and specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
105 Safavi vs. Ghadiri
25-01522424 1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 2. Case Management Conference Defendant Nasrin Ghadiri (“Defendant”) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action for breach of oral contract and second cause of action for promissory and constructive fraud on the grounds that: (1) the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, (2) a condition precent was never satisfied and therefore no contractual duty to Plaintiff arose, and (3) the fraud based claims are legally deficient and duplicative. First, the Court finds that the motion complies with the timing requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 438 and 439. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 438, subd. (f)(2) and 439, subd. (a).) It does not appear that the meet and confer requirements were met but,