Ai Lien Li v. Alan Ko

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 AI LIEN LI,) Case Number: FDI-22-796435) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: September 1, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ALAN KO,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14

15 As there is no evidence in the record that Ms. Wong served her Motion to be Relieved as 16 Counsel on either Father or Mother’s attorney, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 17 3.1362(d), the parties and their attorneys are ordered to appear in person or via Zoom video at 9am 18 on 9/1/2026 in Department 404. Ms. Wong shall use her best efforts to contact Father to inform him 19 that he needs to appear at the 9/1/2026 hearing. 20 If a party chooses to appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for 21 Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 22

23 A. Procedural History 24 1) Petitioner Ai Li (Mother) and Respondent Alan Ko (Father) have one minor child, Vincent 25 (DOB: 6/6/2012, age 14). Mother is represented by attorney Sarah Weddle. 26 2) Although this matter has been pending since 2022, no Judgment has been entered in this matter to 27 date. 28 3) On 5/9/2023, following a 4-afternoon trial, Judge Flores granted a 3-year Domestic Violence 29 Restraining Order for the protection of Mother.

1 4) The restraining order was originally set to expire on 1/17/2026. On 1/16/2026, Mother filed a 2 Request to Renew Restraining Order. 3 5) The hearing on Mother’s Request to Renew Restraining Order has been continued multiple times. 4 6) On 7/31/2026, Father’s attorney Catherine Wong filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. Ms. 5 Wong states there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that effective 6 representation is not possible. Attached to Ms. Wong’s motion to be relieved as counsel is a 7 Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052).

Ms. Wong did 8 not complete section 3 of that form, which requires her, pursuant to California Rules of Court, 9 rule 3.1362(d), to state whether her client has been served with copies of the motion papers and 10 whether she has confirmed that the address at which service was performed is current. 11 7) The Court also notes there is no Proof of Service on file showing service of Ms. Wong’s motion 12 to be relieved as counsel on Ms. Weddle, which is also required by California Rules of Court, rule 13 3.1362(d). 14 8) Ms.

Wong’s motion to be relieved as counsel was originally scheduled to be heard on 15 10/20/2026. At the 8/12/2026 hearing, Father was not present, and the Court advanced the 16 hearing on Ms. Wong’s motion to 9/1/2026. 17 B. Findings and Order 18 1) As there is no evidence in the record that Ms. Wong served her Motion to be Relieved as 19 Counsel on either Father or Mother’s attorney, as required by California Rules of Court, 20 rule 3.1362(d), the parties and their attorneys are ordered to appear.

Ms. Wong shall use 21 her best efforts to contact Father to inform him that he needs to appear at the 9/1/2026 22 hearing. 23

27

29