DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26STCV00741·la·Civil·Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Hearing in 3 daysGRANTED

Henry Singleton v. Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP

Motion to be relieved as counsel

Hearing date
Sep 14, 2026
Department
1
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Nov 16, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHenry Singleton
OtherLavi & Ebrahimian, LLP

Attorneys

Tina Petrosian(Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP)for Plaintiff

Ruling

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 1) September 14, 2026 DEPARTMENT 1 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

by Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Henry Singleton (Plaintiff). The motion was made following the Court's observation that in light of Lavi & Ebrahimian attorney Tina Petrosian's statement under oath that Plaintiff had discharged the firm, withdrawal was mandatory. The motion was not served at the time it was filed on August 17, 2026, but the declaration in support of the motion avers that "personal service is now being effectuated, and proof of service will be filed upon receipt."

On August 25, 2026, Lavi & Ebrahimian filed a proof of service by ordinary mail (not by personal service nor certified, no return receipt). There is no indication that Lavi & Ebrahimian has confirmed that the address used for service is current, as that portion of counsel's declaration is not filled out. The Court will therefore need to speak with counsel at the hearing. Assuming the motion was served on Plaintiff's last known address as properly confirmed, the motion will be granted. The Court will set a further status conference for November 16, 2026 at 8:45 a.m., with a joint (if possible) report due 5 court days before.

Lavi & Ebrahimian is to file an amended proposed order containing that date and give notice. The order granting the motion will not become effective until proof of service of the order on the client is filed in this Court. If counsel did not properly confirm Plaintiff's last known address, the Court will deny the motion. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share