OrderCal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 7, 2020KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DAVID CHAI, individually and 0n behalf 0f all Case N0. 20CV373916 others similarly situated, ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE Plaintiff, RELIEVED AS COUNSEL VS. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. The above-entitled action came 0n for hearing 0n Wednesday, May 26, 2021, at 1:30 pm. in Department 2, the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding. Having reviewed and considered the written submissions filed by the parties, and having listened carefully t0 arguments 0f counsel, the court rules as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff David Chai (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative consumer class action pursuant t0 the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act against defendants Velocity Investments, LLC and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). Attorneys Justin Penn and Shalini 1 ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/26/2021 3:59 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #20CV373916 Envelope: 6528209 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO Bhasker 0f Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP (collectively, the “Moving Parties”), counsel for Defendants, move t0 withdraw as counsel 0f record. II. DISCUSSION California Rules 0f Court, rule 3.1362 sets forth the procedure for moving t0 be relieved as counsel. The Moving Parties state that Defendants have retained a different attorney, Timothy P. Johnson 0f Barron & Newburger, P.C., and that Mr. Johnson has already made an appearance in this case. However, the file does not reflect an appearance by Mr. Johnson for Defendants. At the hearing, the Moving Parties stated that Mr. Johnson had not filed an Association 0f Counsel. In addition, although the Moving Parties state in the declaration in support 0f the motion that Defendants have been served with copies 0f the motion papers, there is n0 proof 0f service 0n file that so states. The proof 0f service with the moving papers only shows service 0n Plaintiff. The Moving Parties confirmed at the hearing that Defendants have not been served with the motion. Accordingly, the motion is defective and is denied without prejudice. Dated: May 26, 2021 Patricia M. Lucas Judge 0f the Superior Court 2 ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
