Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Cross-Defendant 1st Mars Logistics; Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Cross-Defendant Li
12. North Mills Equip. Finance LLC v. Taomore Supply Chain LTD, et al, Case No. CIVSB2400967 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Cross-Defendant 1st Mars Logistics Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Cross-Defendant Li 7/22/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
The Court would GRANT these unopposed motion by the law firm of to be relieved as counsel for. Here, the Bowse Davis Huffine Chung & Hull law firm seeks to be relieved as counsel for Cross- Defendants 1st Mars Logistics and Li. The motions are supported by declarations establishing good cause pursuant to rule 1.16(b) of the Rules of Court. The Court is inclined to GRANT these unopposed motions. Relief is not final until the ruling is served on Plaintiff and a filed proof of service demonstrating that service.
Cross-Defendants are ordered to appear at the next hearing. As a corporation, Defendant 1st Mars will be required to have representation, and the Court will inquire regarding Cross- Defendants’ plans regarding representation and prosecution of this case.
*** *** ***
9. South Colton Families First, et al, v. City of Colton, et al, Case No. CIVSB2317228 Petitioners’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees 7/22/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17 Tentative Ruling The Court would GRANT the motion, in part, and award a reduced fee award in the amount of $201,289.02. Case Summary This is California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) litigation. At the heart of the matter was the City’s approval of the Agua Mansa Logistic Center (Project), involving the construction of two warehouses.
The Real Parties in Interest were those that submitted the Project applications. In May 2023, the Planning Commission Resolutions found the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 exemption applied to the Project. It found that the Project was in conformance with the previously adopted General Plan EIR (or GPEIR). A finding was also made that all environmental impacts of the Project were either less than significant or mitigated to a level of less than significant under outlined mitigation measures. Petitioners contended that the Guidelines section 15183 exemption did not apply to the Project because of issues related to the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and historic resources not being protected.
2
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?”