Lvnv Funding Llc Vs Nute

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL CVCO2302079 CITIBANK VS CERVANTES FOR CAROL T CERVANTES Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.

S-CV-0051944 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Tucker, Deram K ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Tucker, Deram K Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Tucker, Deram K

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.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Line 1. PLAINTIFF PMIG FINANCIAL, LLC's HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. Continued to August 6, 2024 on the court's motion. =(302/CK)

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.

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.

23CV-03604 Synchrony Bank v. Dianna Rodriguez Motion for Order that Requests for Admission be deemed admitted Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.

Case Number: 23PSCV02035 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: G Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.s Application for Default Judgment Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined in Department G (Pomona). Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is also ordered to file an updated proof of service that reflects proper service on Defendant Ameer M. Erfan. BACKGROUND This is a collections action arising from a credit card agreement. Defendant Ameer M. Erfan opened a credit card account with Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo). Subsequently within the last four years, Erfan allegedly had an unpaid balance of $30,080.84 and breached the credit card agreement. On July 7, 2023, Wells Fargo filed a complaint against Erfan, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of agreement, (2) account stated, (3) open book, (4) money lent, and (5) indebtedness. On April 15, 2024, the Court entered default against Erfan. On June 26, 2024, Wells Fargo submitted the present application for default judgment. An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for July 29, 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 Wells Fargo seeks default judgment against Erfan in the total amount of $30,585,84, including $30,075.84 in damages and $510.00 in costs. However, the Court notes Wells Fargos proof of service of summons and the complaint on Erfan is defective. While the proof of service filed October 23, 2023, states Wells Fargos process server served Ameer M Efran with substitute service in Diamond Bar, the court notes that the defendants actual name is Ameer M. Erfan as alleged in the Complaint and stated in the summons. The Court also notes Wells Fargo seeks default judgment against Erfan, not Efran. Because it is unclear if Wells Fargo served the correct defendant, the court will grant a continuance for Wells Fargo to provide an updated proof of service that establishes service was properly effected on the defendant in this action. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Wells Fargos application for default judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined in Department G (Pomona). Wells Fargo is also ordered to file an updated proof of service that reflects proper service on Erfan.