Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 01:13:29 (UTC).

PAMELA ZOLALIAN VS ROCHELLE LEE ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/25/2017 PAMELA ZOLALIAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ROCHELLE LEE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1232

  • Filing Date:

    10/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ZOLALIAN PAMELA

Defendants and Respondents

LEE ROCHELLE

DOES 1 TO 25

ACE ATTORNEY SERVICE INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GILBERT DANIEL M. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

ARUN MUKUND S.

MYERS JEFFREY CABOT

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/7/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

10/25/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

10/25/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Proposed Order and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC and Related Dates); Filed by ACE ATTORNEY SERVICE, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by ROCHELLE LEE (Defendant); ACE ATTORNEY SERVICE, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Answer; Filed by ROCHELLE LEE (Defendant); ACE ATTORNEY SERVICE, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Other - (CIVIL DEPOSIT); Filed by ROCHELLE LEE (Defendant); ACE ATTORNEY SERVICE, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by PAMELA ZOLALIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681232    Hearing Date: April 16, 2021    Dept: 29

Pamela Zolalian vs. Rochelle Lee et al.

TENTATIVE  Ruling:

The unopposed Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant, Rochelle Lee is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel remains counsel of record.

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

Analysis:

CCP section 284 permits the Court to grant leave to an attorney to withdraw from representing a party.  CRC rule 3.1362 requires that a motion for leave to withdraw to be drafted on specified forms for the notice (form MC-051), the declaration (form MC-052), and the proposed order (form MC-053).   CRC rule 3.1362 requires that each of these forms, including the proposed order, be served on the client. The Court has discretion to deny an attorney's request to withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.  (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 1, 4.) 

The Court finds that Counsel filed the notice and declaration. However, Counsel did not comply with CRC rule 3.1362 because no copy of the proposed order was filed with the Court or served on the client. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice unless counsel remedies the defects by the hearing date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ACE ATTORNEY SERVICE INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GILBERT DANIEL