Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
avoid such, please log in and test your equipment in advance of the hearing. Also, if technological or audibility issues arise during the proceeding, please call (657) 622-5908.
All remote video participants shall comply with the court’s “Guidelines for Remote appearances”, found at https://www.occourts.org/system/files/guidelinesforremoteproceedings.pdf.
IN-PERSON: Parties preferring to appear in-person for a law and motion hearing may do so, consistent with Section 367.75 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Orange County Local Rule 375.
PUBLIC ACCESS: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings.
No filming, broadcasting, photography, or electronic recording is permitted of the video session pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.150 and Orange County Superior Court rule 180.
May 15, 2026
# Case Name 2 Li vs. Zhuang Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
No Tentative.
The parties/counsel should be prepared to discuss the following “rinse and repeat” pattern of obtaining trial continuances in this action:
On the scheduled 7/7/25 trial date, Attorney Young stated he was specially appearing and would be substituting into this case for Defendant HAIYAN ZHAUNG. (7/7/25 Minute Order.) As such, the court granted a trial continuance to 8/18/25. (Id.) Shortly after the hearing, Attorney Young filed a substitution form on 7/21/25. (ROA 165.) And shortly thereafter, on 8/4/25, attorney Young filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, which for some reason he set for hearing months out – on 11/14/25 (despite multiple earlier available law and motion hearing dates). (ROA 165.)
On the scheduled 8/18/25 trial date, attorney Young requested another trial continuance based on his pending motion to be relieved as counsel, which again he set for hearing in November. (8/18/25 Minute Order [ROA 180].) In response, the court advanced the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel and continued the trial date to 10/31/25. (Id.)
On the new scheduled 10/31/25 trial date, attorney Young did not personally appear. (10/31/25 Minute Order [ROA 182].) Rather, he arranged for another attorney (ALBERT SIU) to “specially appear” for him and request a trial continuance. (Id.) At the hearing, the court denied Attorney Young’s motion to be relieved as counsel, as Attorney Young filed no proof of service on the client or proposed order, as required. (10/31/25 Minute Order [ROA 182].) Trial was then trailed to 11/3/25. (Id.)
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?”
On the 11/3/25 scheduled trial date, attorney Young appeared remotely, apparently from China, and stated he would not return from China until 11/17/25. (11/3/25 Minute Order [ROA 187].) The court continued the trial to 12/1/25. (Id.)
On the scheduled 12/1/25 trial date, attorney Young appeared remotely and requested yet another trial continuance, stating he would like to refile his motion to withdraw as counsel. (12/1/25 Minute Order [ROA 202].) Trial was continued to 1/26/26. (Id.)
Thereafter, on 12/2/25, attorney Young filed another motion to be relieved as counsel, which was set for hearing on 1/9/26. (ROA 205.) Attorney Young, however, failed to appear for the 1/9/26 hearing and the motion was taken off calendar.
On the scheduled 1/26/26 trial date, attorney Young again requested a continuance and the matter trailed to 1/27/26. (1/26/26 Minute Order [ROA 212].) On 1/27/26, a trial continuance was granted to 6/15/26 after attorney Young pledged to remain on the case if a continuance of the trial is granted. Despite the representation, on 3/27/26 attorney Young filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant HAIYAN ZHAUNG. Little to no
information is provided, except for the conclusion that there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
A 1-2 day bench trial remains set for 6/15/26, at 8:45 am. The trial was specially set based on Attorney Young’s representations.
4 Oei vs. Abinante Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
The court GRANTS the unopposed Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant MATTHEW ABINANTE filed by attorney R. SCOTT HARLAN (of HARLAN LEGAL, PC).
The court finds moving attorney meets the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court.
The order shall not become effective until the filing of a Proof of service showing service of the order on the client.
Moving attorney to give notice and file a proof of service within 14 days.
Upcoming CMC
The court has reviewed the case file, including case management statements filed on 5/11/26. The case is not at-issue. Defendant MATTHEW ABINANTE has filed a demurrer and a motion to strike, which are set for hearing on 7/10/26.
The court CONTINUES the Case Management Conference to Monday, September 14, 2026, at 10:00 am in Dept W8. All appearing parties SHALL file and serve a new timely case management statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369.
Plaintiff to give notice.
4