AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs PRASAD

25CV011500: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs PRASAD 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. TENTATIVE RULING

25CV011500: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs PRASAD 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

The Court rules on the Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication filed by Plaintiff American Express National Bank, (“Plaintiff”) as follows.

Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment based on its Complaint, which alleges a sole of action for breach of contract arising out of unpaid debt related to a credit card account.

FACTS

Plaintiff presents the following undisputed material facts in its separate statement:

Defendant applied to Plaintiff for a credit card account and entered into a written credit card account agreement with Plaintiff for the account number ending in 1006 (the “Account”) on March 13, 2022. (UMF 1.) Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the Cardmember Agreement when Defendant applied for, received or used the credit card account. (UMF 2.) In addition, the Cardmember Agreement provides that use of the credit card constitutes acceptance of the agreement. (Id.)

After receiving the credit card, purchases were made by the use of the account and the charging of various goods, services and cash advances. (UMF 3.) Plaintiff complied with its obligations under the Agreement by paying vendors for all charges that were made on Defendant’s account. (UMF 3.)

Payments and charges on the account are duly reflected on the computerized credit card record regularly kept and maintained by Plaintiff in connection with Defendant’s credit card accounts. (UMF 4.) Those records were provided on a monthly basis in the form of billing statements to Defendant and reflected all debits and credits to Defendant’s credit account. (Id.) The principal balance of $12,361.60 prayed for in the Complaint results from the Defendant’s use of said account. (UMF 3.) There is no record of Defendant asserting a valid and unresolved objection to the balance shown as due and owing on the monthly statements provided to the Defendant. (UMF 5.)

Defendant stopped making payments towards the balance on the subject account. (UMF 6.) Defendant's last payment was on December 19, 2024. (UMF 7.) Under the terms of the credit agreement, by defaulting in making the payments due, Plaintiff accelerated the account balance so that the entire unpaid balance on the account

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV011500: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs PRASAD 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

became due and payable immediately upon demand. (UMF 6.) The amount now owed is $12,361.60 in principal debt, plus court costs. (UMF 8.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 473c(c) requires that a motion for summary judgment be granted “if all the papers submitted 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.” First, the Court must identify the issues framed by the pleadings, since the court’s sole function on a motion for summary judgment is to determine from the submitted evidence whether there is a “triable issue as to any material fact.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 437c(c).) To be “material” for purposes of a summary judgment proceeding, a fact must relate to some claim or defense at issue under the pleadings, and it must also be essential to the judgment in some way. (Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 926.) The pleadings define the scope of the issues in a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381- 382). Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (see Lewis v.

Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

Second, the court must determine whether the moving party has met its statutory burden of proof. (Zavala, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 926.) Where, as here, the plaintiff is the moving party, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(o)(1), to show there is no defense to a cause of action because the admissible evidence produced by the plaintiff proves “each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action.”

Where the moving party meets its statutory burden of proof and the summary judgment motion prima facie justifies a judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party and the court must determine whether that party has met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. (Zavala, 58 Cal.App.4th at 926; Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(1), (2).) Where, as here, the defendant is the opposing party, he or she must produce admissible evidence showing that “a triable issue of one or more materials facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.”

DISCUSSION

As noted above, the Complaint contains a sole cause of action for breach of contract. Thus, the Court must consider whether Plaintiff, by its motion, has proven all elements

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV011500: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs PRASAD 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

of that cause of action and therefore is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. While Plaintiff has alternatively moved for summary adjudication, Plaintiff presents only one issue to the Court as to the sole cause of action for breach of contract and therefore the motion is, in fact, a motion for summary judgment.

'The elements of a breach of contract claim are that a contract was formed; that the plaintiff did everything required by the contract; that the defendant did not do something required by the contract; and that the plaintiff was harmed as a result.' (CSAA Ins. Exchange v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 272, 276.)

Here, Plaintiff's proffered undisputed material facts establish that Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff by requesting that Plaintiff extend credit to Defendant. Plaintiff performed by extending credit to Defendant pursuant to the terms of the application agreement, which Defendant used to purchase goods and services. As agreed, Plaintiff also covered the cost of Defendant’s purchases with the understanding that Defendant would repay the cost of those purchases, plus interest and fees where applicable.

Defendant thereafter breached the contract by failing to make promised payments on her credit card account. As a result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $12,361.60, plus court costs. Having produced evidence in support of the foregoing material facts, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sustained its initial burden as moving party for purposes of summary judgment.

As noted, once the moving party meets its burden of production, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) Having failed to oppose the motion, Defendant cannot meet her burden, has effectively conceded the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments (see D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723), and Plaintiff therefore is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

The Court declines to sign the proposed order and proposed judgment, as the judgment includes an award of costs based on a prematurely-filed memorandum of costs. (See Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211, 221.) Plaintiff may seek its costs pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700 after judgment has been entered.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV011500: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs PRASAD 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Plaintiff shall submit a revised order and judgment for the Court’s signature.