American Express National Bank v. Lu Ren
Motion to enter judgment by stipulation
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: May 14, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
Line 4 25CV472814 Deanna Santana v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. City of Santa Clara Line 5 22CV404386 Capital One Bank Defendant Sai Maddela’s motion to set aside default. Notice is not (USA) N.A. v. Sai proper. The proof of service indicates service to an e-mail address. Maddela There is no indication the parties have agreed to electronic service. And the lack of opposition suggests the attempted service did not result in providing actual notice to plaintiff Capital One Band (USA) N.A. The motion is CONTINUED to September 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 10 to allow for proper service of the motion. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer before that hearing about the possibility of stipulating to set aside the court default. The court will prepare the order. Line 6 23CV409558 American Express Plaintiff American Express National Bank’s motion to enter judgment National Bank v. Lu by stipulation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) Notice is proper and the Ren motion is unopposed. The parties signed a stipulation for entry of judgment in 2023, under which defendant Lu Ren agreed to make installment payments to pay off a debt. A declaration in support of the motion indicates defendant stopped making payments. On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. Moving party to submit proposed order and proposed judgment, indicating damages of $2,534.06 and costs of $459.26.
- oo0oo -
3
Cited authorities
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.