Alexander Rowland et al v. Newco Capital Group LLC et al

The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.

The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6, for an order to vacate the dismissal and for entry of judgment under terms of the stipulated settlement.

The Court finds good cause for entering judgment based on the Parties’ stipulated settlement, filed August 19, 2025, this Court’s Order of August 22, 2025, and the Declaration of Smita Suman filed in support of the instant motion (Suman Decl.). (See Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1183 [entering appealable judgment on trial court order, entered after dismissal, that finally determined the rights of the parties in the action].) No opposition appears in the Court’s file.

Alexander Rowland et al v. Newco Capital Group LLC et al 25CV002471

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to September 09, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. Moving counsel is directed to provide code-compliant notice of the continued hearing to all parties.

The Court is without jurisdiction to consider the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. First, the Declaration of Counsel states that the Notice of Motion and moving papers were served by Mail and email. (See id. at ¶ 3.) However, the proof of service attached thereto states that service was accomplished only by email. Second, the proof indicates service was made on July 17, 2026, which is insufficient notice of the hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b). (See Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-05 [“The court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question”].) Applicant is to provide adequate notice of the continued hearing.

21