DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
N/A·santaclara·Civil·Civil
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED

Charity Emos vs Ford Motor Company et al

Withdraw as an Attorney

Hearing date
Jun 17, 2026
Department
12
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Jun 17, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCharity Emos
DefendantFord Motor Company

Attorneys

Tionna Carvalho(Strategic Legal Services)for Plaintiff
Larry Chae(Strategic Legal Services)for Plaintiff
Tyson Smith(Strategic Legal Services)for Plaintiff

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 06/17/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE 6 Charity Emos vs Ford Motion: Withdraw as an Attorney Motor Company et al Plaintiff’s counsel Tionna Carvalho of Strategic Legal Services moves to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Charity Emos, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 284(2). Good cause appearing, and no opposition received, the motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the previously submitted Form MC-053 but will modify the next court date for accuracy.) The Court has subsequently received Notice from new counsel Larry Chae and Tyson Smith from same law firm – Strategic Legal Services – as handling attorneys for Plaintiff.

Counsel shall appear at the Case Management Conference 6/17/26 at 10:00.

LINE 7 25CV464001 Shari Yuan vs Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 7 Starbucks Corporation LINE 8 25CV481792 Avelardo Saenz vs Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration Ford Motor Company et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 8

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share