DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2024CUPA031399·ventura·Civil·Civil
Hearing 2 months agoCONTINUED

MICHAEL SWANN vs SPENCER PENHART

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing date
Jun 23, 2026
Department
42
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMICHAEL SWANN
DefendantSPENCER PENHART

Attorneys

Jessica S. Williamsfor Plaintiff

Ruling

2024CUPA031399: MICHAEL SWANN vs SPENCER PENHART 06/23/2026 in Department 42 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

At the last hearing on Attorney Jessica S. Williams’ Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, on May 22, 2026, the Court continued the hearing to this June 23, 2026 date “in order to allow the filing of proper proofs of service.” Williams was directed to “give notice of the continued hearing date” and to “file proof of service with the Court.”

On June 17, 2026, attorney Williams filed a Notice of Continued Hearing, attaching the prior documents, and serving them on the attorney for Defendant via email and on Plaintiff Michael Swann via FedEx overnight, as well as email. The proof of service now includes an email address (mike.swann1957@gmail.com).

It appears that service has now been made at a proper physical, consistent with the MC-052 declaration of counsel, as well as at an email address. However, service was only made on June 17, 2026, meaning that service was not effective until June 19, 2026 at the earliest, meaning there was only one-court day notice of this continued hearing date provided to Plaintiff Swann. Absent his appearance or indication of his waiver of statutory notice, the hearing should be continued once again in order to comply with CCP §1005(b).

1

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