Related Content
in Adams County
Ruling
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. VS. LOUIS D BANKS ET AL
Jul 19, 2024 |
CGC19580582
Matter on the Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, July 19, 2024, Line 16. PLAINTIFF CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.'s Motion For Order Setting Aside Dismissal Of The Case. Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Order Setting Aside Dismissal of the Case is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file a Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties within 15 calendar days of the filing of this order. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the defendant is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. vs WISE
Jul 17, 2024 |
CVPS2305706
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC AS Motion for Order to Deem Matters Admitted
CVPS2305706 ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. by CAVALRY SPV I, LLC AS ASSIGNEE
vs WISE OF CITIBANK, N.A.
Tentative Ruling: The unopposed Motion of Plaintiff, Cavalry SPCV I, LLC, for Order Deeming
Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1 through 5, inclusive, are deemed
admitted for all purposes in this litigation.
Ruling
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS INNA KOSTINA, AN INDIVIDUAL
Jul 16, 2024 |
21SMCV01012
Case Number:
21SMCV01012
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2024
Dept:
207
TENTATIVE RULING
DEPARTMENT
207
HEARING DATE
July 16, 2024
CASE NUMBER
21SMCV01012
MOTION
Motion to Vacate Judgment
MOVING PARTY
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
OPPOSING PARTY
none
BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint for damages against Defendant Inna Kostina (Defendant).
Default was entered against Defendant on August 31, 2021, and default judgment was entered against Defendant on December 11, 2021.
Plaintiff now moves to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case without prejudice because Defendant has submitted a fraud claim under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 128.
The motion is unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD SECTION 473 RELIEF
Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), a court may relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
.
Code of Civil procedure section 473 includes a discretionary provision, which applies permissively, and a mandatory provision, which applies as of right. (
Minick v. City of Petaluma
(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 15, 25 (hereafter
Minick
).)
Section 473 is a remedial statute to be applied liberally in favor of relief if the opposing party will not suffer prejudice.
Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.
Unless inexcusable neglect is clear, the policy favoring trial on the merits prevails.
(
Minick, supra
, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 24 [cleaned up].)
The mandatory provision of section 473, subd. (b) requires an attorneys sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect[.]
Otherwise, relief under section 473 is discretionary.
The party or the legal representative must seek such relief within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); see
Rappleyea v. Campbell
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [because more than six months had elapsed from the entry of default, and hence relief under section 473 was unavailable];
People v. The North River Ins. Co
. (2011) 200 Ca.App.4
th
712, 721 [motion for relief under section 473 must be brought within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months]).
The six-month limit is mandatory; a court has no authority to grant relief under section 473, subdivision (b), unless an application is made within the six-month period.
(
Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp
. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 340, citations omitted.)
However, in the case of a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding determining the ownership or right to possession of real or personal property, without extending the six-month period, when a notice in writing is personally served within the State of California both upon the party against whom the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding has been taken, and upon his or her attorney of record, if any, notifying that party and his or her attorney of record, if any, that the order, judgment, dismissal, or other proceeding was taken against him or her and that any rights the party has to apply for relief under the provisions of Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall expire 90 days after service of the notice
(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)
ANALYSIS
With regard to timing, judgment was entered on December 11, 2021, yet Plaintiff did not move to vacate the judgment until May 30, 2024, long after the requisite six months in which Plaintiff may bring the motion.
The six-month limit is mandatory; a court has no authority to grant relief under section 473, subdivision (b), unless an application is made within the six-month period.
(
Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp
. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 340, citations omitted.)
Further, the motion is not supported by any declaration or affidavit of fault.
Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff the requested relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
Moreover, the Court does not find Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) to provide a legal basis to vacate the Judgment which was entered on the request of Plaintiff, especially when Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence in support of the motion.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion to vacate the judgment entered against Defendant on December 11, 2021.
The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court ruling.
DATED: July 16, 2024
___________________________
Michael E. Whitaker
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs. Combest
Jul 21, 2024 |
23CVG-01320
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. COMBEST
Case Number: 23CVG-01320
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The present motion is unopposed.
This collection case was filed on December 18, 2023. Plaintiff is a debt buyer and sole assignee
of an agreement entered into by Defendant on a credit card account with Plaintiff’s predecessor
Synchrony Bank. The Complaint alleged causes of action for Account Stated and Open Book
Account, with a prayer for $2,523.69 against Defendant Jennifer Combest. Defendant filed her
Answer on January 26, 2024. On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem matters admitted.
Defendant did not oppose the motion to deem matters admitted, and the Court granted the motion
on May 13, 2024.
Meet and Confer: “The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the
pleadings a declaration stating” the attempts made to meet and confer. CCP § 439(a)(3). The
Declaration of Gregory Parks provides sufficient evidence of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts.
Request for Judicial Notice: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the
Court’s May 13, 2024 Order that Matters in Request for Admission be Admitted, pursuant to Evid.
Code § 452(d) and 453.
Merits of Motion: CCP § 438(c)(1)(A) provides a plaintiff may move for judgment on the
pleadings if the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and the answer does
not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. The grounds for the motion shall
appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any other matter of which the court may take
judicial notice. CCP § 438(d). The Court may take judicial notice of responses to discovery
records pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453. Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.
The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the parties
establishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, express
or implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, express
or implied, to pay the amount due. Leighton v. Forster (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 467, 491. “A ‘book
account’ is ‘a detailed statement which constitutes the principal record of one or more transactions
between a debtor and a creditor arising out of a contract or some fiduciary relation, and shows the
debits and credits in connection therewith ....’ ” [Citations.] The creditor must keep these records
in the regular course of its business and “in a reasonably permanent form,” such as a book or card
file. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337a.) “A book account is ‘open’ where a balance remains due on the
account.” [Citation.] Pro. Collection Consultants v. Lujan (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 685, 690–91.
This Court’s Order, entered May 13, 2024, deemed admitted Plaintiff’s requested admissions 1-9.
The admissions establish that: 1) Defendant had a credit account ending in 8363, 2) the credit
account was issued by Synchrony Bank, 3) Defendant received periodic statements regarding the
account, 4) as of December 18, 2023, the balance owed on the account was $2,523.69, 5)
Defendant has not made any payments on the account since December 18, 2023, 6) Defendant
submitted a payment toward the outstanding debt on the account within 4 years immediately prior
to December 18, 2023, 7) Plaintiff was assigned the debt, 8) Plaintiff is the current owner of the
debt, and 9) Defendant received through the US mail a pre-legal notification from Plaintiff
regarding the account.
Defendant’s admissions establish the required elements of each cause of action. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The admissions establish that a principal sum of
$2,523.69 is due and owing. That sum is awarded. Plaintiffs have also submitted a memorandum
of costs for $369.50, comprising the filing and service of this motion. The amount appears
reasonable and is awarded. A proposed order and judgment have been lodged with the Court and
will be executed.
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 16, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 17, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. POWELL, JEREMY
Jul 29, 2024 |
S-CV-0051880
S-CV-0051880 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Powell, Jeremy
** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged
Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading,
default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Powell, Jeremy
Ruling
Truist Bank vs. Stock, et al.
Jul 16, 2024 |
23CV-0203124
TRUIST BANK VS. STOCK, ET AL.
Case Number: 23CV-0203124
Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on
May 28, 2024 to Plaintiff Truist Bank and counsel, Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., for failure to timely serve pleadings
on Defendant Chris Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) and Local Rule of Court 3.03 and
failure to timely seek default on Defendant Bright Nichols Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule
3.110(g). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must
be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). Local Rule 3.03 mandates
that Plaintiff serve Defendant with Local Form LF-CIV-100 and file a proof of service within the same timeframe.
The Complaint in this matter was filed on September 1, 2023 and no proof of service has been filed for defendant
Chris Stock. Plaintiff did not address defendant Chris Stock in the written response to the Order to Show Cause.
CRC 3.110(g) requires Plaintiff to file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service of
the responsive pleading has elapsed. Defendant Bright Nichols Stock was served on October 7, 2023. The time
for filing a responsive pleading expired November 6, 2023. No extension was requested or granted. No default
was requested.
On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Declaration that asserts that a default packet “is pending to be drafted.”
No explanation is given for the noncompliance with CRC 3.110. No default judgment has been requested.
With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s Counsel. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an
Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely
serve the complaint and LF-CIV-100, failure to timely seek default judgment, and failure to timely prosecute.
The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in
Department 63. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter
is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status
of service.
******************************************************************************************
9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings
******************************************************************************************