WELLS FARGO, N.A. v. WILDENBOER

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 16, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

In accordance with the Customer Agreement, Defendant used the account, and made payments, charges, and incurred a balance thereon. (UF 6, 20.) Plaintiff sent Defendant monthly statements of the Subject Account each and every billing period. (UF 7, 21.) The statements of the account reflected all charges, payments, minimum payment due that billing period, and any fees and interest incurred for each billing period. (UF 8, 22.) There is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account. (UF 9, 23.)

There is no record of any active lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for unresolved disputes on this credit card account. (UF 10, 24.) Defendant’s last payment on the Subject Account was on October 16, 2024. (UF 11, 25.) Thereafter, no further payments were made by the Defendant, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the Customer Agreement, Defendant was in default. (UF 12, 26.) The balance due on Defendant’s Subject Account is $20,855.54. (UF 13, 27.) As a result of Defendant’s unpaid balance, Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $20.855.54. (UF 14, 28.)

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT LEGAL STANDARDS In a summary judgment motion, the court must determine from the evidence presented that “there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law....” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) In making this determination, the court may rely on “affidavits, declarations ... and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b).) The plaintiff “may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

Defendants moving for summary judgment bear the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the cause of action in question cannot be established or that there is a complete defense thereto. In general, a moving defendant must present evidence that, if uncontradicted, “would constitute a preponderance of evidence that an essential element of the plaintiff’s case cannot be established....” (Kids’ Universe v. In2Labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 879.) If defendant fails to meet this burden, its motion must be denied and plaintiff need not make any showing at all.

Defendant can show that an essential element of plaintiff’s claim cannot be established by presenting evidence (discovery responses, deposition testimony, etc.) that plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence. (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855, fn. 23.)

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. If the moving party carries this burden, it causes a shift and the opposing party is then subject to its own burden of production to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Id. at p. 850.) Each material fact must have a citation to supporting evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) If a triable issue is raised

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 16, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

as to any of the facts in the separate statement, the motion may be denied. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.) Opposition declarations are to be liberally construed while the moving party’s evidence is strictly scrutinized. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768.)

IV. DISCUSSION The Court finds the above facts are sufficient to satisfy the elements of plaintiff’s claims. The burden therefore shifts to defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the causes of action or a defense thereto. Defendant has failed to meet this burden as he has not filed an opposition and raised any triable issue of disputed fact. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment against defendant in the amount of $20,855.54.

No. 25CV04146

POORSINA v. HOGAN DBA HOGAN LAND SERVICES

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The motion is granted. The Court’s ex parte order of April 14, 2026 vacating an earlier court order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is vacated. The result is that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted and this matter is stayed pending the result of that proceeding.

I. BACKGROUND

Self-represented plaintiff Mohammad Poorsina sued defendant Michael R. Hogan dba Hogan Land Services for unlicensed contracting, breach of contract, fraud, negligence, unfair competition, and statutory penalties regarding a dispute resulting from their contractual relationship. Plaintiff hired defendant to prepare design plans for plaintiff’s residence and driveway. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to obtain proper zoning and land use approvals for the project, performed work not authorized by the contract, and misrepresented that the work satisfied regulatory requirements.

On April 8, 2026, this Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court’s basis for granting the motion was that plaintiff’s opposition argument that fraud in the execution occurred was not supported by the parties’ contract. The Court found the contract did not state defendant or his firm had a general contractor’s license; instead, it was clear from the Master Service Agreement and addenda that all personnel were licensed as engineers, land