Motion for Entry of Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
DATE: June 25, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 23CV426343 American Express Motion for Entry of Judgment National Bank vs Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. Anil Francis LINE 2 24CV445359 Brittany Dowdy vs Motion to Strike Avtar Judge et al Scroll down to Line 2 for Tentative Ruling.
LINE 3 24CV452583 Christopher Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Newman vs City Scroll down to Line 3 for Tentative Ruling. of San Jose California et al. LINE 4 24CV453450 Christopher Love Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication vs Ford Motor Scroll down to Line 4 for Tentative Ruling. Company et al. LINE 5 25CV465829 Crown Asset Motion to Quash Management, LLC On October 27, 2025, the moving party/defendant Jerry Nguyen filed a vs Jerry Nguyen motion to quash service of summons. However, the motion is procedurally deficient as the defendant did not file any proof of service of this motion upon the plaintiff.
Proof of service for a motion to quash is required under Code of Civil Procedure sections 418.10, 1005(a), and California Rule of Court, rule 3.510. Based on the foregoing, the defendant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. LINES 25CV469820 Ying Wang vs Motion to Compel (Line # 6) & Motion for Protective Order (Line # 7) 6-7 The John Stewart Scroll down to Lines 6-7 for Tentative Ruling. Company et al. LINE 8 25CV470037 Diana Guadalupe Demurrer Chipana vs Scroll down to Line 8 for Tentative Ruling.
Jaspinder Grewal et al.
9:00 A.M. Calendar Lines # 1 Case Name American Express National Bank vs Anil Francis Case No. 23CV426343 Motion for Entry of Judgment
I. BACKGROUND This collections case stems from a non-payment of a credit card account. On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff American Express National Bank filed a Complaint against Defendant Anil Francis for the outstanding debt and alleged damages in the amount of $33,200.07.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On April 2, 2024, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Pending Performance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Declaration of Ren, p. 2; Exhibit A). Defendant Francis signed the agreement on January 1, 2024 and the plaintiff signed the agreement on April 1, 2024. (Id). The settlement agreement set forth a payment plan for a total amount of $24,120.00 that was to be paid by December 11, 2025. (Id). Defendant agreed to monthly payments starting of $1,005.00 that was to be paid on or before January 11, 2024 and continuing thereafter through December 11, 2025. (Id).
The parties stipulated that in the event that the defendant failed to make the scheduled payments, the defendant would be in default. (Id). The agreement expressly stated that the plaintiff could seek a motion or ex parte application to enforce the agreement for the balance and costs, and less payments made. (Exhibit A).
After the settlement agreement was executed, Defendant Francis started making scheduled payments. However, Defendant Francis failed to make payments for the month of July 11, 2024 and each month thereafter. (Declaration of Ren, p. 2). The last payment received was on June 11, 2024. (Id).
On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for entry of judgment. The motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating mail service to the plaintiff. Plaintiff acknowledges credit in the amount of $7,083.84. Defendant seeks $569.22 in costs for seeking this entry of judgment. (Memorandum of Costs).
The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on June 10 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
The Court carefully reviewed the following: Plaintiff’s notice of motion (totaling 3 pages); memorandum of points and authorities (totaling 3 pages); Declaration of Zhen Ren in support of plaintiff’s motion and attached Exhibit A (totaling 8 pages); memorandum of cost (totaling 2 pages); proof of service; and the pleadings.
II. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides in relevant part:
“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If the parties to the settlement agreement or their counsel stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. 4
(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: (1) The party. (2) An attorney who represents the party. (3) If an insurer is defending and indemnifying a party to the action, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the party’s behalf. This paragraph does not apply if the party whom the insurer is defending would be liable under the terms of the settlement for any amount above the policy limits.”
Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37). To enforce a written settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98).
Enforcement under section 664.6 “require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985). Section 664.6’s “requirement of a ‘writing signed by the parties’ must be read to apply to all parties bringing the section 664.6 motion and against whom the motion is directed.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v.
Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 [“A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”]). “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of ... dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.” (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293).
III. ANALYSIS Here, all requirements to enforce the settlement have been met. There was a meeting of the minds on all material terms, including the amount, scope and payment terms, including a monthly payment scheduled of the settlement. The parties signed and filed the stipulation containing all of the material terms. The stipulation and agreement is signed by all parties. Thus, the Court grants the motion to enforce and will enter a judgment amount of $26,685.45 against Defendant Francis. The judgment amount is calculated as follows: total amount $33,200.07 less the credited sum of $7,083.84 plus $569.22 in costs.
The motion is unopposed. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and the motion being unopposed, the Court GRANTS the motion to enter a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The judgment amount of $26,685.45 is entered against Defendant Francis.
The Court will prepare the formal Order.
5