BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

Plaintiff Bank of America’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant Oliver Taban (“Defendant”) is GRANTED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

This is a consumer collection action in which Plaintiff alleges common counts.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013451: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8C

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (CCP § 438(c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the motion shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (CCP § 438 (d).). The Court properly takes judicial notice of the fact that defendant has admitted the allegations of the Complaint.

Indeed, the Court will take judicial notice of records, such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer [or motion for judgment on the pleadings] (Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482; Morris v. Harbor Boat Bldg. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 882, 886; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604- 605.)

Thus, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may extend consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice; in doing so, the Court performs essentially the same task as ruling on a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146.) Additionally, the Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.) “A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendant's pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (MacIsaac v.

Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.)

Here, the complaint properly alleges the requisite allegations for common counts. Further, Plaintiff’s requests for admission have been deemed admitted.

The following are the matters that have now been deemed admitted by the Court: (1) Oliver Taban had a credit account number ending in 2697 issued by Bank of America, N.A. (for the purposes of these requests, Bank of America, N.A. shall mean and refer to Bank ofAmerica, N.A., and/or its predecessor, ifany), (2) Oliver Taban was provided periodic statements regarding credit account number ending in 2697 issued by Bank of America, N.A., (3) As of November 27, 2023, the balance owed by Oliver Taban on credit account number ending in 2697 was $10,465.68, (4) No payments have been

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013451: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8C

made on credit account number ending in 2697 issued to you by Oliver Taban since November 27, 2023, and (5) The last payment on credit account number ending in 2697 issued by Bank of America, N.A. was made within the three (3) years immediately prior to November 27, 2023. Additionally, Oliver Taban has admitted that the billing statement—Attachment 2—is genuine and was previously provided by Bank of America, N.A.. Attachment 2 shows the balance owed by Oliver Taban credit account number 2697 was $10,465.68. (Motion, 4:4-16.)

Plaintiff now seeks a judgment against Defendant for the principal sum of $10,465.68, plus costs in the amount of $558.50 pursuant to Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs, for a total judgment in the amount of $11,024.28.

While Defendant filed an answer, the later admissions take precedence over the contrary allegations in the answer. (Del E. Webb Corp., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at 604- 605 ['The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court'].) '[A] deemed admitted order establishes . . . that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.)

Defendant opposes the motion and argues that the motion is premature because he is “concurrently seeking to withdraw” the deemed admissions. (Opposition, 1:23-25.) However, Defendant did not file a motion to withdraw the deemed admissions. On January 12, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application advancing Defendant’s motion for relief from deemed admissions from June 17, 2026 to March 11, 2026, and continuing the hearing on the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings from January 26, 2026 to June 17, 2026. However, the Defendant failed to file a motion for relief from deemed admissions.

Based upon the facts deemed admitted by Defendant, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

The Court will enter the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013451: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8C