DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24-01370248·orange·Civil·Counsel Withdrawal
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

McClane vs Mofrad

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
C25
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMichael Mcclane

Attorneys

JONATHAN COLEMANfor Plaintiff

Ruling

104 Vo vs. Silva

25-01481237 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record x 3 Matthew P. Cortez (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for (1) Defendant Jorge Perez De Tagle, (2) Defendant Quantum Global Health, Inc., and (3) Defendant La Vida Health & Wellness Center of Garden Grove The motions are unopposed. Moving Attorney has stated a basis for permissive withdrawal under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. The motion satisfies the notice, declaration, and proposed order requirements of Cal.

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 The Counsel to update and submit order (MC-053) for the Court’s signature. The order relieving counsel will be effective upon counsel filing proof of service of a copy of the signed order (MC-053) on the clients and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).) The motions are GRANTED. Moving Attorney to give notice.

105 McClane vs Mofrad

24- 01370248 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record JONATHAN COLEMAN seeks an order relieving him from acting as counsel of record for Plaintiff Michael Mcclane. Motions to be relieved as counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) are governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. All the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 have been met, and the Declaration of Attorney Jonathan Coleman appears to demonstrate good cause for granting the motion based on the allegations that:

a) Irreconcilable differences between counsel and client; and b) Failure of communication Additionally, all required judicial counsel forms (MC- 051, MC-052, and MC-053) relating to the notice of motion, declaration and proposed order have been utilized and properly served. [CRC 3.1362(a)-(d).] However, it is unclear whether this Court has acquired knowledge of the Plaintiff Client’s address. Attorney failed to list the client’s address in either the motion or proposed order (ROA 191). The client’s address, as listed on the proof of service is Michael McClane 3775 Leticia Street, Chino, CA 91710 (ROA 188). Motion is GRANTED. Attorney is to update the proposed order with client’s address and upcoming matters. Attorney to give notice. Attorney is relieved from acting as counsel of record when proof of service of order (MC-053) signed order has been filed herein.

106 Kinecta Federal Credit Union vs. Ogi

25-01509319 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Judgment Defendant, Jeffrey Masayuki Ogi (“Defendant”), moves for an order setting aside and vacating the entry of default and default judgment entered against him on January 31, 2026. The subject default was entered on January 30, 2026. (ROA 17.) The default judgment was entered on March 16, 2026. (ROA 37.) On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff, Kinecta Federal Credit Union (“Plaintiff”), timely filed proof of service of the

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