Angela Citro V. Jason Albrechtsen

S-CV-0052459 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Cooper, Jay B. No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/21/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6. Default packet received, but not yet reviewed.

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.

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. BOWEN Case Number: 23CVG-00603 This matter is on calendar for confirmation of Judgment. The Court’s June 5, 2024 Ruling after trial ordered Defendant to submit a proposed judgment for the Court’s signature. No proposed judgment has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Case Number: 23PSCV01387 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: G Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285,786.65. BACKGROUND This is a collections action. From May 2022 to July 2022, Plaintiff Wex Inc. (Wex) alleges Defendant Little Fat Trucking became indebted to Wex for a fuel card account in the total amount of $237,576.05. On May 8, 2023, Wex filed a complaint against Little Fat Trucking and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) open book account and (2) account stated. On May 9, 2024, Wexs process server served Little Fat Trucking through the California Secretary of State. On June 20, 2024, the Court entered default against Little Fat Trucking after they failed to timely file an answer. On the same day, Wex submitted the present application for default judgment. A case management conference is set for July 16, 2024. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.) ANALYSIS Wex seeks default judgment against Little Fat Trucking in the total amount of $340,918.37, including $237,576.05 in damages, $102,386.57 in interest, and $955.75 in costs. Because the Court finds Wex submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application for default judgment with the following modification: While Wex requests $102,386.57 in interest, the Court finds this amount was calculated incorrectly and deems the correct amount of awardable interest to be $47,254.85 (10% of $237,576.05 divided by 365 = $65.0893287671 per diem multiplied by 726 days (07/21/2022 07/16/2024). Accordingly, the total judgment is reduced to $285,786.65. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Wexs application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285,786.65 (Damages of $237,576.05 + Interest of $47,254.85 + Costs of 955.75).

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.

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, July 19, 2024, line 8, PLAINTIFF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE DEEMED ADMITTED (PART 2 OF 2) For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear 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 (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to psw@hassard.com 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. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear 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. end of part 2 of 2 tentative ruling) = (302/JPT)

Case Number: 23TRCV03914 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: P Application for Writ of Possession The court considered the moving papers. No opposition has been received. RULING The application for writ of possession is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2023, plaintiff Ally Bank (Ally) filed a complaint against defendant Charhonda L. Bridges aka Charhonda Bridges (Bridges). The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) claim and delivery of personal property; and (2) money due on a contract. The complaint alleges that Ally became the owner of a written contract through written assignment in which Bridges purchased from Plaintiffs assignor a 2018 Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class, and said contract is in defect based on Bridges failure to make payment due and owing on April 11, 2023. On January 18, 2024, Ally filed the instant application for writ of possession relating the subject vehicle. On June 12, 2024, Ally filed proof of substitute service of the summons, complaint and instant application for writ of possession. LEGAL STANDARD Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.010(a).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 512.010(b), the application must be submitted under oath and include: (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention. (3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value. (4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there. (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure. Before the hearing on the Writ of Possession, the defendant must be served with (1) a copy of the summons and complaint; (2) a Notice of Application and Hearing; and (3) a copy of the application and any affidavit in support thereof. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.030.) The writ will be issued if the court finds that the plaintiff's claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the writ are established. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.040(b).) A claim has probable validity where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim. (Code Civ. Proc. § 511.090.) DISCUSSION A. Procedural Requirements Allys proof of service, filed on June 12, 2024, indicate that Bridges was served with the requisite documents by substitute service on June 2, 2024. The proofs of service refer to service of the summons, complaint, notice of application and hearing, application for writ of possession, and other related documents. It is noted that Bridges has not filed an opposition to the instant application. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Ally has complied with the service requirement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.030.) Additionally, upon review of the application, the Court finds that Ally has complied with the procedural requirements under Code of Civil Procedure § 512.010(b). B. Basis of Plaintiffs Claim The instant application and complaint are apparently based on cause of action for claim and delivery. (See Applications; Memoranda at pg. 2.) In order to be entitled to a writ of possession, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they are entitled to possess the subject property. (Code Civ. Proc. §512.010(b)(1).) Where an application is based on a cause of action claim and deliver, the Plaintiff here must establish: (1) a right to immediate possession of the Vehicle; and (2) the wrongful detention of the Vehicle by the defendants. (Law v. Heiniger (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d Supp. 898, 899; Home Payment Jewelry Co. v. Smith (1914) 24 Cal.App. 486, 488.) In order to meet this burden, it is improper for a plaintiff to rely solely on a verified complaint. (See 6 Witkin, California Procedure, (5th ed. 2008) §255, pg. 203.) The application may be supported by declarations and/or a verified complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 516.030.) The declarations or complaint must set forth admissible evidence except where expressly permitted to be shown on information and belief. (Id.) Here, Ally solely relies upon the Declaration of James Singleton, who is the authorized representative for Ally and oversees Bridges account with respect to the subject vehicle. (App., Singleton Decl. ¶ 1.) Mr. Singleton attests that Ally has right to immediate possession of the subject vehicle for the following reasons. First, Ally is the assignee of sales contract, and the contract states that the right to immediate possession of the subject vehicle is permitted upon a default of any provision within the contract. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Second, Ally is listed as a lienholder with first priority on the subject vehicles title. (Id., Ehx. B.) Also, Mr. Singleton attests that Bridges has wrongfully detained the subject vehicle for her failure to make necessary payments that were due and owing on April 11, 2023 in the amount of $1,327.03, and Bridges continues to be in breach of the contract for her failure to make payments. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Ally has satisfied its evidentiary burden to warrant the requested relief. Based on the foregoing, the application for writ of possession is GRANTED. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Matter on calendar for Tuesday, July 16, 2024, Line 4, PLAINTIFF CITIBANK, N.A.'s Motion For Order That Matters In Request For Admission Of Truth Of Facts Bk Deemed Admitted. The matter is continued to August 13, 2024, on the court's motion. =(302/JPT).