U.S. Bank National Association D/B/A Elan Financial Services V. Rex A Fenton, Virginia Fenton

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

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)

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. GOODWIN Case Number: 23CVG-00253 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement informing the Court that the stay is still in effect. The matter is continued to Tuesday, January 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for status of bankruptcy. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Case Number: 24VECV01449 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Dept: T [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Ally Banks Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Introduction Plaintiff Ally Bank (Plaintiff) moved for a writ of possession against Defendant Antonio White (Defendant). An opposition was due on July 9, 2024 and none was filed. Discussion Plaintiff failed to file proofs of service on the Summons and Complaint, as well as the Notice of Application for Writ of Possession. Without proofs of service, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant. Without proofs of service, Defendant was not provided proper notice and opportunity to be heard on the application. Any orders issued without proper notice and opportunity to be heard are void. Plaintiffs application for writ of possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALTERNATIVELY, IF PLAINTIFF FILES THE PROOFS OF SERVICE FOR THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION PRIOR TO THIS HEARING DATE, THEN&. [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Ally Banks Application for Writ of Possession is GRANTED. The Court waives an undertaking from Plaintiff Ally Bank. Plaintiffs proof of service showed that Defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint and properly notified of the hearing on the application. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 512.010.) Plaintiff provided a declaration to show the probable validity of their claim and right to repossess the vehicle from Defendant because Plaintiff provided evidence showing: Defendants entry into the Written Lease Agreement (Lease) for the vehicle; Plaintiff assignors performance of delivery of the vehicle; Defendants breach in failing to pay; and Plaintiffs damages. (Code Civ. Proc sec. 512.040.) (James Singleton Decl. pars. 5-9.) Plaintiff further provided that the vehicle is in the custody and control of Defendant and located at Defendants residence. (Singleton Decl. par. 10.) (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 512.060.) With Defendants breach, Defendant no longer has rights to possess and further refused to surrender the vehicle. Plaintiff has shown their rights to possession. Plaintiff submitted the amount owed on the account and the value of the vehicle. (Singleton Decl. pars. 6-7.) The evidence showed that the account balance exceeds the value of the vehicle and no equity exists for the Defendant. The Court finds that the requirement to post an undertaking is waived. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 515.010.) Plaintiffs application for writ of possession is GRANTED.

Parties, or counsel if represented, are ordered to appear personally or remotely to discuss the status of the case and to set trial dates in Dept. 2. You must notify the court and all other parties that you intend to appear remotely using form RA-010. In addition to providing notice, a Zoom link must be requested no later than one (1) court day before the hearing and shall be submitted to the Court through the Court’s website at https://www.amadorcourt.org/gi-zoomRequestForm.aspx.

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. GOODWIN Case Number: 23CVG-00253 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement informing the Court that the stay is still in effect. The matter is continued to Tuesday, January 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for status of bankruptcy. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

23CV46838 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE TITLE 48 CFR AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED AS LETTER OF ROGATORY On July 24, 2023, Capital One, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for common counts or account stated against Deanna K. Yates (“Defendant.”) Defendant filed a response on December 4, 2023. Defendant now moves “to Acknowledge Title 48 CFR International Commercial Affidavit Presented as Letter of Rogatory.” Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. The motion does not comply with Local Rule 3.3.7. All matters noticed for the Law & Motion calendar shall Include the following language in the notice: 3.3.7 Tentative Rulings (Effective 1/1/18) All parties appearing on the Law and Motion calendar shall utilize the tentative ruling system. Tentative Rulings are available by 2:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the scheduled hearing and can be accessed either through the court's website or by telephoning 209-754-6285. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court, unless a party desiring to be heard so advises the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing including advising that all other sides have been notified of the intention to appear by calling 209-754-6285. Where appearance has been requested or invited by the Court, all argument and evidence Is limited pursuant to Local Rule 3 3. All matters noticed for the Law & Motion calendar shall Include the following language in the notice: Pursuant to Local Rule 3 3 7, the Court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be accessed on the Court's website or by calling 209-754-6285 and listening to the recorded tentative ruling. If you do not call all other parties and the Court by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the hearing, no hearing wiII be held and the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court [emphasis in original.] Failure to include this language in the notice may be a basis for the Court to deny the motion. While the Court has authority to deny the motion on this ground alone, in the interests of justice it has considered the substantive merits of the Defendant’s motion and denies the motion on that basis. Legal Analysis Defendant appears to be arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint is invalid on the grounds of what is known as the Sovereign Citizen Movement. The Sovereign Citizen movement is a “loose grouping of litigants, commentators, and tax protestors who often take the position that they are not subject to state or federal statutes and proceedings.” (United States v. Weast (5th Cir. 2016), 811 F.3d 743, 746 fn. 5.) In essence, subscribers to this movement will show up in court “asserting various theories to the effect the court has no jurisdiction over them.” (Ibid.) Courts across all jurisdictions have consistently designated these types of arguments as frivolous.(See e.g., United States v. Studley (9th Cir. 1986), 783 F.2d 934, 937, fn. 4 [the sovereign citizen argument has been “consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades. Indeed advancement of such utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil litigants who raise them”]; (U.S. v. Benabe, (7th Cir. 2011, 54 F.3d 753, 767 [such theories that a “sovereign citizen” is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts “should be rejected summarily, however they are presented”]; Ceja v. Birkholz, CV 22-1636-FWS(E) (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2022) [citing numerous cases finding sovereign citizen claims to be frivolous and without merit].) California courts may exercise jurisdiction “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code of Civil Procedure §410.10.) This Court has personal jurisdiction because Defendant was properly served with the Summons and Complaint at her residence of 4628 S. Burson Rd., Valley Springs, CA 95252. As regards subject matter jurisdiction this “relates to the inherent authority of the court involved to deal with the case or matter before it.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005), 35 Cal.4th 180, 186.) The Defendant has failed to make any valid argument that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall provide notice of the Ruling forthwith. No further formal Order is required. GUARANTY HOLDINGS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v CATTANEO

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.