Troia v. Life Source International School, et al.
Motion for leave to file cross-complaint
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
DISCUSSION: Motion to be relieved as counsel
Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for the motion is a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. This is a valid reason for withdrawal. Accordingly, the motion is granted.
Counsel should note that the order will become effective upon the filing of proof of service of a signed copy of the order on Plaintiff. Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files with the Court proof of service of the signed order. Counsel is to serve a copy of the signed order (form MC-053) on Plaintiff within 10 days, and file proof of service thereof. Accordingly, Counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 1, 2026 ___________________________________ Rolf M. Treu Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at [email protected] by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
Judge Rolf M. Treu, Department 415 HEARING DATE: September 1, 2026 TRIAL DATE: Not set. CASE: Troia v. Life Source International School, et al. CASE NO.: 25STCV30299 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY/PARTIES: Defendant Shenell Adams RESPONDING PARTY/PARTIES: Plaintiff Jennifer Troia, in her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Social Services
PROOF OF SERVICE: · Plaintiff opposes the motion on the merits, and thereby waived any procedural objections. (See In re Marriage of Falcone (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 826.)
CASE HISTORY: · October 16, 2025: Complaint filed. · February 24, 2026: Defendant's default entered. · August 11, 2026, Stipulation to set aside default filed.
TENTATIVE RULING: On August 11, 2026, Plaintiff Jennifer Troia, in her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Social Services ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Shenell Adams ("Defendant") filed a stipulation to set aside the default Plaintiff took against Defendant. In the stipulation, Plaintiff and Defendant further stipulated to vacate the hearing date on Defendant's motion for leave to file the cross-complaint, and that Defendant could file her cross-complaint. Plaintiff cannot renege on the stipulation by opposing the motion. Accordingly, the Court places the motion off calendar as moot. Per the parties' stipulation, Defendant is to file her responsive pleadings and cross-complaint within 30 days of this order. Moving party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2026 ___________________________________ Rolf M. Treu Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at [email protected] by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
Case Number: 26STCV06895 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 415 Tentative Ruling Judge Rolf M. Treu, Department 415 HEARING DATE: September 2,
Cited authorities
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?”