SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ELEANOR URIZAR, Plaintiff(s), vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendant(s).
Case No.: 19STCV28230
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Dept. 31
8:30 a.m.
December 1, 2020
Plaintiff’s attorney of record, David Azizi (“Counsel”), has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel contending relief is necessary because Counsel has been unable to communicate with Plaintiff, and Counsel cannot effectively represent Plaintiff’s interests because of the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Counsel declares it served the moving papers on his client via mail at the client’s last known address. Counsel has filed proof of service on his client and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.
No opposition has been filed to the motion. However, the court notes that there is a motion for summary judgment set for 12/23/20, which
Hearing Date
December 01, 2020
Type
Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ELEANOR URIZAR, Plaintiff(s), vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendant(s).
Case No.: 19STCV28230
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Dept. 31
8:30 a.m.
December 1, 2020
Plaintiff’s attorney of record, David Azizi (“Counsel”), has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel contending relief is necessary because Counsel has been unable to communicate with Plaintiff, and Counsel cannot effectively represent Plaintiff’s interests because of the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Counsel declares it served the moving papers on his client via mail at the client’s last known address. Counsel has filed proof of service on his client and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.
No opposition has been filed to the motion. However, the court notes that there is a motion for summary judgment set for 12/23/20, which