Lawzilla Additional Information: It is Lawzilla’s understanding the tentative ruling was not adopted as the final ruling and instead the motion was granted.

Case Number: BC687518 Hearing Date: June 26, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CHI HUN LEE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC687518

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

June 26, 2019

The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion on 5/10/19. Prior to the hearing, the Court issued the following tentative ruling:

Plaintiff, Pearl Montes’s attorney of record, Gerald L. Laderman, moves to be relieved as counsel. Counsel declares he has lost contact with Plaintiff, such that further representation is not possible. The motion is denied without prejudice for two reasons.

First, Counsel declares the moving papers were served on Client at an address he was unable to confirm. Counsel declares he attempted to confirm the address via e-mail, telephone, and certified mail. The Court wishes to hear from Counsel, at the hearing, concerning the results of each of these attempts. Did Counsel receive the signed return receipt? Did Counsel get Plaintiff’s voicemail? Did Counsel leave a message? Did Counsel receive any sort of bounce-back from the e-mail? Counsel must address these issues by way of an amended declaration. Additionally, if Counsel is unable to serve Plaintiff at a confirmed address, Counsel must serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court pursuant to CCP §1101(b) and CRC 3.1362(d).

Second, the trial date is currently scheduled for 6/04/19, which is approximately a month after the hearing on the motion. Counsel indicates the parties have agreed to continue the trial date, but there is no evidence of a continued trial date in the file.

Third, Counsel’s proposed order indicates Plaintiff was “personally served.” This is not correct, and the proposed order must correctly reflect the actual service of the moving papers.

At the 5/10/19 hearing, the Court continued the trial date to 12/16/19, thus obviating any concern about the impending trial date. The Court did not adopt its tentative ruling on the motion to be relieved as counsel, and instead continued the hearing to 6/26/19. Counsel filed a notice of continuance of the hearing on the motion, but has not, to date, filed proof of service of the moving papers on Plaintiff at either a confirmed address or through service on the Court Clerk. The Court therefore denies the motion without prejudice at this time.