Motion to be relieved as counsel
The Petition was filed on January 21, 2026. The hearing on the Petition was set for March 11, 2026. The tentative ruling published on March 10, 2026, required appearances. When Petitioners failed to appear, the Petition was denied without prejudice both for failure to appear and to file proof of publication.
On March 18, 2026, Petitioners filed proof of publication showing notice of the Petition was published in the Petaluma Argus-Courier on four dates in January and February 2026. On April 21, 2026, Petitioners filed this motion explaining the reasons for their failure to appear and to file proof of publication in time for the hearing on this motion. Had proof of publication been timely filed for the March 11, 2026, hearing on the Petition, it would have been granted.
This court finds Petitioners’ reason for their failure to appear and to timely file proof of publication satisfactory. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED and the Petition in hereby granted. Petitioners are directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling granting this motion in addition to submitting an order granting the Petition.
7. SCV-273938, Din v. Thuesen
This matter is on calendar for the motion of Kenneth E. Bacon, Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C., to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Adnan Din (“Plaintiff”). The hearing on this motion was originally set to be heard on September 23, 2026. As trial is currently set for October 9, 2026, Mr. Bacon’s ex parte application to advance the hearing was granted.
Notice of entry of order on the ex parte application advancing the hearing was emailed to Plaintiff on May 5, 2026. Proof of service of the order showing service by mail has not been filed. The mandatory electronic service requirements apply only to persons represented by counsel. (CCP § 1010.6(b)(1).) Although they cannot be required to accept electronic service, unrepresented persons may consent to receive electronic service by either serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court, or manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court and providing the person's electronic address with the consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. (CCP § 1010.6(c)(1)–(3); Cal Rules of Ct 2.251(b).)
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?”
Here, while technically still represented, Mr. Bacon seeks to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff is treated as unrepresented for the purpose of receiving notice of this motion. Absent an affirmative showing that Plaintiff has agreed to accept service by email, proof of service solely by email of the ex parte order advancing the hearing is insufficient. The hearing on this motion is CONTINUED to July 15, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16, to allow Mr. Bacon to provide proof of service of the new hearing date, by mail, on the Plaintiff.
8