Motion to be relieved as counsel
303 Ferranti vs. The court withholds a tentative ruling. Counsel Zavala shall appear for oral argument.
304 Washington vs. Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by Locke defense counsel William L. Buus and Buus Law Group APC (Attorneys), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Andy Locke, aka Andrew J. Locke. aka Andrew K. Locke (Client). The motion is GRANTED.
Attorneys have largely complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1362, and filed and served forms MC-051 and MC-052 on Client and on the plaintiff. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Client. As such, the court GRANTS the motion pending Attorneys filing a complete and up to date from MC-053. The form must include the trial date and any pending hearing dates, including the OSC Re Sanctions.
The order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file with the court a proof of service showing the signed orders granting the motion was served on Client. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.
Attorneys shall give notice.
305 Venegas vs. Plaintiff Roque Venegas’ motion for leave to amend Ford Motor the complaint is GRANTED. Company The motion substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, but Plaintiff failed to submit a proposed pleading as required under subsection (a). Nevertheless, the Court finds there was no prejudicial delay. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [applying “a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments”].)
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?”