SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al.

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 10/27/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 10/27/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 53

will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Counsel, Peter N. Hakim, of Downtown LA Law Group (“Counsel”), to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Domique Simpson (“the Client” or “Plaintiff”) is DROPPED due to defective service of notice.

Counsel requests to be relieved as counsel. Counsel has filed a declaration in support of the motion stating that there has “been a complete and irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, primarily due to the client’s prolonged failure to maintain communication with counsel and to participate meaningfully in the prosecution of this matter. Despite multiple attempts to contact the client through various means, counsel has been unable to obtain necessary direction or authorization to proceed, thereby rendering continued representation unworkable and ethically untenable.” (Hakim Decl.)[1]

Notably, ¶ 3.a.(2) of Counsel’s supporting declaration indicates the moving papers were served by mail to the Client, but Counsel has been “unable to confirm that the address is current or locate a more current address for the client.” (Hakim Decl., ¶3.b.(2).)

Therefore, the Court is unable to conclude that service of the moving papers constitutes adequate service of notice, particularly based on the representations made in Counsel’s declaration. Where proper service by mail or by email cannot be accomplished, the moving papers must be served on the Clerk of the Court, but it does not appear this occurred. (See Code Civ. Proc., §1011(b)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.252, 3.1362(d).) Thus, even if it were true that Counsel is unaware of the Client’s current address, service remains defective and this matter must be dropped.

Defective notice deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Parenthetically, the Court finds it concerning that Plaintiff’s counsel makes no mention as to

the fact that Plaintiff is presently deceased. The court acknowledges that this has been represented to the Court as fact in prior briefing and requests submitted to this Court (see, e.g.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 10/27/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 53

7/30/25 Orders; 4/9/25 Orders). Plaintiff’s counsel has omitted this critical fact in the supporting declaration submitted hereto. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to notice another motion with proper service, Plaintiff should address how the issues of Plaintiff’s death impact a motion to be relieved as counsel.