Motion to be relieved as counsel
damages under Civil Code §3294. Accordingly, the motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED without prejudice to plaintiff making a subsequent motion for leave to amend.
Para 11 in prayer – Attorney’s Fees: There is no basis for attorney’s fees alleged in the FAC. (Code of Civil Procedure §1021.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to strike attorney’s fees, thus conceding the argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”].) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to attorney’s fees.
The Motion to Strike is GRANTED, without prejudice to the plaintiff later seeking leave to amend to assert new specific facts showing SVS was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice.
SVS is ORDERED to file its answer to the FAC by 6/18/26.
On the Court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to July 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24 to be heard concurrently with the Motion to Set Aside Default filed by Mr. Post. Mr. Post and Plaintiff are directed to meet and confer regarding resolution of the issues raised in the Motion to Set Aside Default and to advise the Court not later than 14 days before the hearing if the motion needs to remain on calendar.
SVS shall give notice to all parties, including Mr. Post.
309 Arteaga vs. Counsel Melissa G. Fulgencio, John Kauffman and Circle City Uplift Law, PC’s motion to be relieved as counsel of Liquidators record for defendants Circle City Liquidators, LLC LLC and Two Brothers Wholesale, LLC is GRANTED.
Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. The court finds good cause to grant the relief requested on the merits.
The order granting relief is effective upon filing of a proof of service of the signed order on the client.
Moving counsel shall give notice.
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?”
First Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy:
A claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy cannot be properly pled against a public entity based on Government Code section 815 and the California Supreme Court’s holding in Miklosy v. Regents of the University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899-900. In the Opposition, Plaintiff fails to address the Miklosy case and instead cites to a case involving a private employer, Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880.
Second Cause of Action for Failure to Promote Due to Race, Color and Age:
The second cause of action fails to identify any statutory basis for imposing liability on Defendant. The demurrer on this ground is thus well-taken. (See Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.)
In addition, to the extent the second cause of action is based on a theory of breach of an implied employment agreement, it appears such claim