Motion to be relieved as counsel
The Court finds no factual allegations in the SAC that Carrington acted with oppression or malice. Mr. Giglio asserts that he “alleges that Carrington engaged in various acts because Carrington was motivated by a desire to engineer a foreclosure of his home in order to recoup the late, foreclosure, and other fees from the foreclosure sale. Foreclosing and then evicting a person from their home without justification is despicable conduct.” (Opposition at 3:20-23.) He fails, however, to cite to any such allegations.
No such allegations are immediately apparent to the Court. Moreover, it is not the Court’s obligation to search for them. (See Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 927, 934 [“Rules of Court rule 3.1113 rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party's theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide”].)
Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that the factual allegations of the SAC are sufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages. The Court, therefore, finds good cause for striking that prayer from the SAC.
It is an abuse of discretion for a court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that a Plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (Goodman).) The Court finds, from the allegations of the SAC, a possibility that Mr. Giglio can amend to allege facts that would support a finding of malice or oppression. Therefore, the Court grants Mr. Giglio leave to amend the SAC for this limited purpose.
Alexander Rowland et al v. Newco Capital Group LLC et al 25CV002471
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court has never obtained Jurisdiction to hear the instant Motion. (See Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-05
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court has given counsel three opportunities to properly serve Notice of the Motion and hearing. As noted in the Minute Order of May 5, 2026, the original service did not provide adequate notice of the original hearing. Despite the Court’s express order that Counsel provide adequate notice in advance of the June 2, 2026, hearing, there is no proof in the Court’s file that any notice of that hearing was provided.
Counsel’s latest effort at providing formal Notice of hearing fails as service was made by email with only 16 days’ notice (June 19, 2026, was a Court holiday), without providing two additional days as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).).
10