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

argue, in conclusory fashion, that the response is incomplete and evasive because it provides only a partial narrative and fails to fully describe all facts supporting the allegation. Without more, the Court is not able to conclude that Defendant’s substantive response is incomplete or evasive.

As such, the motion as to SPROGS Nos. 4 and 7 is DENIED.

With respect to SPROGS Nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15-16, Defendant asserted objections and exercised its right under section 2030.230 to produce documents. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to justify its objections and has further failed to specify the documents in sufficient detail to permit Plaintiffs to locate and identify them as readily as Defendant could, as required by section 2030.230. Defendant does not address Plaintiffs’ contention that it failed to comply with section 2030.230.

The Court finds that Defendant’s exercise of section 2030.230 fails to comply with the requirements therein. Specifically, Defendant fails to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (§ 2030.230.) Given that 2,847 pages of documents have been produced, something more specific than “See separately produced documents” is required here.

As such, the motion as to SPROGS Nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 16 is GRANTED.

E. SANCTIONS

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party . . . who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to [interrogatories or requests for production of documents], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Given the mixed ruling, the Court does not find that Defendant unsuccessfully opposed the motion. As such, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

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 June 02, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to permit Applicant to provide sufficient notice of the hearing.

“The court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.” (Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-05.) Applicant failed to provide adequate notice of the hearing date.

(See Code Civ. Proc. §§1005, subd. (b) and 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) The proof of service indicates that notice and the moving documents were mailed on April 17, 2026, and electronically served on April 12, 2026. However, April 08, 2026, was the last day to timely serve notice by mail, and April 09, 2026 was the last day to electronically timely serve notice of the May 05, 2026, hearing.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice 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.

In The Matter of Kathleen M Harris 26CV000429

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME

TENTATIVE RULING: The Petition is GRANTED IN PART.

The Petition is somewhat vague in that it lists four current last names, all purportedly for the same person. (See id. at ¶ 2.) However, the Order to Show Cause lists only one last name: Harris. (See id. at ¶ 1.) The Court notes that the Order to Show Cause has been published. Thus, the request to change the name Kathleen M. Harris to Kathleen M. Lamoureux is GRANTED. To the extent that Petitioner also sought to change other names by this same petition, the Petition is DENIED in those respects.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order, limited however, to changing the name Kathleen M. Harris to Kathleen M. Lamoureux.

If this is inconsistent with Petitioner’s wishes, she should request Oral Argument pursuant to Local Rule 2.9, and appear at hearing to discuss with the Court.

11