A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).) “[I]f all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show 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,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“Where a plaintiff moves for summary judgment, the plaintiff has the burden of showing there is no defense to a cause of action by proving each element of the cause of action. (Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 564- 565.) Once the plaintiff meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Id., at 564.) To satisfy this burden, the opposing party must present admissible evidence and may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleading. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most

favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Sheila S. Lichtblau Judge Sheila S. Lichtblau dossier Other Motion for Summary Judgment in MARIN All MARIN County rulings Other Debt Collection cases Other granted rulings in MARIN

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

, as modified (Jan. 24, 2008).)

With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks Summary Judgment of both causes of action in the complaint: (1) breach of written contract and (2) breach of contract (implied in fact).

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff. (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391, internal citations omitted.) If the action is based on an alleged breach of a written contract, the complaint may set out the terms in the body of the complaint, attach a copy of the written, or plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language. (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 199.)

A cause of action for breach of implied contract has the same elements as does a cause of action for breach of contract, except that the promise is not expressed in words but is implied from the promisor's conduct. (Aton Ctr., Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1230. Internal citations omitted.) Both types of contracts are identical in that they require a meeting of minds or an agreement. (Ibid.) Thus, it is evident that both the express contract and contract implied in fact are founded upon an ascertained agreement or, in other words, are consensual in nature, the substantial difference being in the mode of proof by which they are established. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s Facts in Support of Motion

In support of its Motion, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement sets forth the following facts:

Defendant applied for and was issued a Wells Fargo credit card (“Subject Account”) ending in 3337. (Plaintiff’s Undisputed Material Fact (“PUMF”) Nos. 1, 15.) Plaintiff sent Defendant the credit card along with the written Customer Agreement associated with the credit card. (PUMF Nos. 2, 16). Pursuant to the terms of the written Customer Agreement, Defendant accepted the terms of the written agreement by using the Wells Fargo Credit Card. (PUMF Nos. 3, 17.)

Pursuant to the terms of the Customer Agreement associated with the card, Plaintiff would extend credit to Defendant whereby Defendant could charge goods, services, or obtain cash advances on the credit line. (PUMF Nos. 4, 18.) In exchange, Defendant was to repay the principal amount lent plus applicable interest and finance charges. (PUMF Nos. 5, 19.) In accordance with the Customer Agreement, Defendant used the account, and made payments, charges, and incurred a balance thereon. (PUMF Nos. 6, 20.)

Plaintiff sent Defendant monthly statements of the Subject Account each and every billing period. (PUMF Nos. 7, 21.) The address Plaintiff mailed the statements to was: Yuliya A Ghosh 116 Neds Way, Tiburon, CA 94920-1536. (Id., see also Ross Decl., ¶ 4-7, Ex. 2, (mailing address listed bottom of page 1 of each statement).) 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.

(PUMF Nos. 8, 22.) There is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account. (PUMF Nos. 9, 23.) Furthermore, there is no record of any active lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for unresolved disputes on this credit card account. (PUMF Nos. 10, 24.) Defendant’s last payment on the Subject Account was on July 21, 2024. (PUMF Nos 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. (PUMF Nos. 12, 26.)

The balance due on Defendant’s Subject Account is $7,086.12. (PUMF Nos. 13, 27.) As a result of Defendant’s unpaid balance, Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $7,086.12. (PUMF Nos. 14, 28.)

With these facts, the Court finds Plaintiff has successfully met its burden on summary judgment by proving each element of each cause of action. The burden therefore shifts to Defendant to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact with respect to the elements of the causes of action or a defense thereto.

In Opposition, Defendant asserts there are multiple triable issues surrounding the nature and existence of an alleged contract, the terms of said contract, the enforceability of said terms, and the amount of the alleged damages. However, Defendant failed to dispute any of Plaintiff’s facts in the Opposition Separate Statement. The Court further notes that no Objections to Evidence nor a Motion to Compel Arbitration were separately filed. To the extent Defendant attempted to include either in the Opposition Memorandum of Points and Authorities, those requests are not properly before this Court. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subds. (f)(1)-(2), (h), rule 3.1354, subd. (b) [requiring evidentiary objections to be separately served and filed]; Hodjat v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [upholding the trial court’s refusal to rule on objections not filed in a separate document]; See also Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

The Court then considers whether the Additional Material Facts submitted in Defendant’s Separate Statement (“AMF”) create a triable issue of material fact as to the elements of the causes of action or establish a defense to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court finds that they do not. Each AMF cites to Defendant’s Declaration as the supporting evidence for the fact. No such Declaration was filed with the Court. Accordingly, none of the AMF are supported as required by competent evidence.

For these reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for July, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 3

Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov