DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CIVSB2519812·sanbernardino·Civil·Contract
CONTINUED

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. DeLeon

Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Hearing date
May 11, 2026
Department
S-17
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffWells Fargo Bank, NA
DefendantDeLeon

Ruling

14. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. DeLeon, Case No. CIVSB2519812 Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 5/11/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

CONTINUE the matter to allow movant to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirements. Prior to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a party is required meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is the subject of the motion . . . for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a) [emphasis added].) Merely sending a letter informing the party that a motion is forthcoming is insufficient. Here, the supporting declaration indicates only that a letter was sent with no response. (See Lopez Decl., ¶¶4-6 & Exh. 1.) Thus, the Court would continue the matter to allow a supplemental declaration showing compliance. Movant will file a supplemental declaration at least ten days before the next hearing with a courtesy copy lodged directly in the department.

*** *** ***

15. Ramirez v. Biscomerica Corp, Case No. CIVSB2531907 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings 5/11/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

Tentative Rulings As to Objections: The Court would OVERRULE Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections, numbers 1-11. As to the Motion: The Court would GRANT the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The Class Claims are therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. Case Summary This is a wage-and-hour class action. Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendant from approximate 2023, through August of 2025. He performed various duties as a mixer. He alleges that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against hourly, non-exempt workers, including requiring off-the-clock work and failure to provide all required meal and rest breaks, among other things. As such, he filed suit on October 28, 2025, alleging violations relating to (1) minimum wages; (2) overtime; (3) meal periods; (4) rest breaks; (5) wage timeliness; (6) accurate wage statements; (7) final pay; and (8) reimbursements; as well as (9)

2

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share