Plaintiff Stanley Gary's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Plaintiff Brian Harrison's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
a result, the Court cannot see any significant prejudice to either defendant from permitting this amended pleading. Consequently, the Court errs on the side of liberality and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion, thus leaving it to the new defendant to challenge the propriety of the pleading. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [finding the " 'preferable practice' " to be permitting an amended pleading and letting the adverse party " 'test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.' [Citation.]"].)
But the Court also adds the following caveat: if Defendant Peters is not served by August 11, 2026, the Court will dismiss the action against him. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 583.210(a).)
The Court VACATES the Court's Motion to Dismiss scheduled for June 10, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 and SETS a Case Management Conference for August 17, 2024, at 8:30 am in Department 24. Plaintiff to file the amended complaint within five court days. The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion.
CV-25-007555 - GARY, STANLEY vs VASQUEZMARIN, EMANUEL - a) Plaintiff Stanley Gary's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed. b) Plaintiff Brian Harrison's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Stanley Gary The unopposed motion of Attorneys Giorgio Cassandra and Elliott Eghbali from the law firm of BD&J, PC, to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Stanley Gary is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client. The Court notes that the information in the proposed order regarding the "next scheduled hearing" set forth in Item 7a is now stale. Moving Counsel are directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that updates the information for the next case management conference to September 28, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
b) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Brian Harrison The unopposed motion of Attorneys Giorgio Cassandra and Elliott Eghbali from the law firm of BD&J, PC, to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Brian Harrison is GRANTED, effective on the filing of a proof showing service of the signed order on the client. The Court notes that the information in the proposed order regarding the "next scheduled hearing" set forth in Item 7a is now stale. Moving Counsel are directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that updates the information for the next case management conference to September 28, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.
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?”
CV-25-011144 - LISTMAN, REBECCA LYNN vs DHILLON, SUKBINDER - Defendant's Application of Matthew W. Casey to Appear Pro Hac Vice - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The unopposed application of Attorney Matthew W. Casey to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Sukbinder Dhillon is GRANTED. The Court finds that the application complies with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. The applicant has demonstrated that he is an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction, is not a California resident or regularly engaged in practice in California, and is properly associated with California counsel. The verified application includes all information required under rule 9.40(d), including disclosure of prior pro hac vice appearances.
The Court further finds that the procedural requirements of rule 9.40(c), including notice and service on all parties and the State Bar, have been satisfied. Accordingly, Matthew W. Casey is permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action, subject to compliance with all applicable California laws, rules, and professional responsibilities.
The Court was unable to locate a proposed order in the court file for this application. The Moving Party is directed to submit a proposed order within five court days that comports with this ruling.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department