Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
attorney of record for Defendant, the motion appears to seek relief for an attorney who has not appeared in this action.
Additionally, regardless, the motion fails to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court rule 3.1362.
The notice of motion fails to list the Court address, within ¶2(b) of the mandatory notice form. Additionally, the address listed within the caption is the address for the Civil Complex Center, despite Department C10 being located in the Central Justice Center, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Based on the above, the client did not receive adequate notice of the hearing.
Further, the motion was inadequately served. While a proof of service indicates the motion to be relieved was served on the client, via mail, on May 5, 2026 (ROA No. 38), the proof of service does not indicate service of the accompanying declaration and proposed order, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d).)
Finally, the mandatory declaration left the entirety of ¶3 blank. (ROA No. 36.) Consequently, there is no indication the client’s address was confirmed. (See ¶3(b)(1) of ROA No. 36.) Similarly, Counsel offered no information which supports proceeding, despite a lack of confirmation. (See ¶3(b)(2) and (c) of ROA No. 36.) The above fails to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d)(1).
The moving party to give notice.
2 Thompson v. Counsel John P. Swenson, Janae L. Hill, and Arden Burstein move to be Doan relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff John Antyony Thompson (“Client”). For the following reasons, the motion is CONTINUED to July 09, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in this Department.
On 05/07/2026, this court continued the hearing for Moving Counsel to file and serve proof of service “establishing service of all moving papers on Client” and an updated proposed order. The court also ordered Moving Counsel to provide notice of ruling and continued hearing date on the client.
The court record shows no compliance with this court’s 05/07/2026 order.
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?”
There remains no proof of service of the moving papers on Client John Anthony Thompson, no updated proposed order, and no proof of proper service (i.e., by non-electronic means) of this continued hearing date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3); Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).)
No later than nine (9) court days before the continued hearing, Moving Counsel shall file and serve: (1) proof of service that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a, establishing service by non-electronic means of all moving papers on Client; and (2) an updated proposed order on Judicial Council form MC-053 that updates the upcoming hearing information provided in Section 7.
Client Thompson may file a response or opposition no later than five (5) court days before the continued hearing.
Moving Counsel shall provide notice of this ruling and continued hearing date on the client.
3 Haloy Technology Off calendar. Corporation v. Tazga LLC
1:30 p.m.
1 Long v. Glyder No Tentative Ruling. LLC
2 Teger v. Stevens Defendants Jack Stevens and Carol Stevens’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (h)).
This motion is unopposed.
Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication standard
“Summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at 851.)
A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies the initial burden by submitting undisputed evidence “showing that a cause of action has no merit [because] one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850- 51.) However, “[t]he defendant must indeed present evidence." (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 855, italics original.)
In addition, if a plaintiff has pleaded several theories, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.) If a defendant fails to meet this initial burden, the plaintiff need not oppose the motion and the motion must be denied. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.)
If the moving party meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to show, by reference to specific facts, the existence of a triable, material issue as to a cause of action or an affirmative defense. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855; Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575.)
3