American Express National Bank vs. Carol McKee

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 May 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

2 CVL66664 American Express National Bank vs. Carol McKee 11/13/2024

American Express National Bank Attorney: Douglas Wallace

Carol McKee Pro Per Motion Hearing - Summary Judgment Case Management Conference Further 11/13/2024 Complaint File Tracking 06/09/2025 High Density

Case notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless directed otherwise, all participants may appear via Zoom: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Passcode: 123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are assigned to that department for all pre-trial purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is a garden-variety collections case. Before the Court this day is plaintiff’s motion to summary adjudicate in its favor the single cause of action contained in the operative pleading, to wit: breach of contract (pled as to each card agreement).

The purpose of the law of summary adjudication is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether trial is in fact necessary. A plaintiff moving for summary judgment on its own claim has the burden to produce admissible evidence on each element of a cause of action entitling him or her to judgment. This means that plaintiffs who bear the burden of proof at trial by a preponderance of evidence must produce evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not. Contrary to popular folklore, summary adjudication is no longer a disfavored remedy; instead, it is “now seen as a particularly suitable means to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s case.” Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC (2017) 2 Cal.5th 536, 542; Alameda Health System v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1159, 1174.

Plaintiff has met its initial burden of proof to show (1) parties capable of contracting, (2) mutual consent, (3) a lawful object, (4) sufficient cause or consideration, (5) plaintiff’s performance, (6) defendant’s breach, and (7) damage. Civil Code §§ 1550, 1605; Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 437, 453. That is enough to shift the obligation to defendant, whose silence is enough to warrant a ruling in plaintiff’s favor. See CCP §437c(b)(3). It shall be the order unless defendant appears and provides substantial good cause for failing to file written opposition to the motion.

4/30/2026 3:47 pm