Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:01 1 9:01 2 9:01 3
9:01 4 9:01 5
9:00 23CV417705 The Heights Residence, LLC Order on Cross-Defendant Paxos 1 v. Trust Demurrer to Cross- Victoria Soboleva, et al. Complainant U.S. Bank Trust National Association’s First Amended Cross-Complaint
See Line 1 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 25CV475688 Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 2 Inc. Judgment on the Pleadings Against v. Defendant Luis Castaneda Luis Castaneda, et al. See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order & Judgment.
Line 2 Case Name: Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Luis Castaneda, et al. Case No.: 25CV475688 Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves under Code of Civil Procedure Section 438(c) for Judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant Luis Castaenda (“Defendant”),1 and Defendant’s answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:21-2:2 (filed: February 13, 2026).
The Motion came on for hearing on August 7, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
On September 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with a First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract (among other causes of action) against Defendant for damages: (1) in the amount of $15,707.23 together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from May 17, 2025, plus (2) treble damages under Insurance Code § 11760.1(a), plus costs for this suit. Complaint at ¶¶ 1-18 & Prayer for Relief as to the First Cause of Action at ¶¶ 1-3 (filed Sept. 19, 2025). Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds that it does state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract by Plaintiff against Defendant including the damages sought.
Defendant filed an Answer on January 20, 2026, which does not deny any allegation or claim in the Complaint. Answer (filed Jan. 20, 2026). Indeed, in the Answer “Defendant admits all allegations of the Complaint” and “acknowledges the debt owed in the amount of $15,707.23.” Answer at ¶ 3(b) (emphasis added). Having reviewed the Answer, the Court finds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute any defense to the Complaint.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Code of Civil Procedure Section 438(a) authorizes a Plaintiff to bring this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings where, as here, “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” C.C.P. § 438(a).
1 More specifically, as named in the Complaint, Defendant is Luis Castaneda aka Luis A.
Castaneda aka Luis Alejandro Castaneda-Rios aka Luis Alejandro Rios aka Luis A. Castaneda Rios dba Castaneda Construction. (Complaint filed Sept. 19, 2025).
Here, as the Court has found that (1) the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant for damages in the amount of $15,707.23 plus interest, plus treble damages in the amount of $47,121.69,2 plus costs of suit, and (2) Defendant’s Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute any defense to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion under Section 438(a) is GRANTED in all respects.
Moreover, as the Court reads Defendant’s Answer to admit that he admits all allegations in the Complaint including that Defendant owes the debt claimed by the Complaint, there is no reasonable possibility that this defective pleading (that fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any defense) could be cured by amendment. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Defendant does not argue otherwise. Indeed, Defendant has not opposed the Motion at all, which the Court views as Defendant conceding the Motion in its entirety. D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.; California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 9:105.10, Ch. 9 at pp. 94-95 (failure to file opposition papers to motion is treated “as an admission that the motion is meritorious”) (Weil & Brown, The Rutter Group, 2025 Ed.); see also Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).
Given this Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion without leave to amend, Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment now in the amount of damages sought in the Complaint of $15,707.23, plus interest on the principal debt to the date of this hearing in the amount of $1,923.60 as sought in the Complaint,3 plus treble damages in the amount of $47,121.69 under Insurance Code § 11760.1(a) as sought in the Complaint,4 plus costs incurred for bringing this Motion in the amount of $782.02.5 So the total amount that Plaintiff is entitled to now is $65,534.54.6
Accordingly, Judgment is entered now in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for the total amount of $65,534.54.
2 $15,707.23 x 3= $47,121.69 3 See Declaration of attorney Kenneth J. Freed in Support of Motion (“Freed Decl.”) at ¶
4 (“The interest on the principal debt is at a rate of 10%. The total interest accumulated as to the date of hearing will be $1,923.60). 4 For clarity of the record, the amount of treble damages of $47,121.69 is based on the
principal balance of $15,707.23, i.e., 3 times $15,707.23 = $47,121.69. Pl. Memo. of Points & Authorities at 4:9-10. 5 Freed Decl. at ¶ 5 (“As of this filing, costs for this suit has accumulated to $782.02). 6 $65,534.54 = $15,707.23 (damages) + $47,121.69 (treble damages) + $1,923.60
(interest) + 782.02 (costs).
Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the pleadings in the total amount of $65,534.54. in favor of Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. and against Defendant Luis Castaenda is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 7, 2026
Vincent I. Parrett Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Judgment
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. and against Defendant Luis Castaenda came regularly for a hearing by the Court on August 7, 2026, on notice duly given. After reviewing all the papers and giving counsel for all parties the opportunity to be heard, the Court GRANTS THE MOTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:
Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. have and recover now from Defendant Luis Castaenda a Total Judgment in the amount of $65,534.54, which equals damages of $15,707.23 plus treble damages of $47,121.69 plus interest of $1,923.60 plus costs of $782.02.
Date: August 7, 2026
Vincent I. Parrett Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
15