| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME WELLS FARGO BANK, MOTION FOR SUMMARY
N.A. VS OLIVAR JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling:
Moving party: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Responding party: Defendant Amanda Olivar
Motion filed: 2/24/2026 Opposition filed: 4/29/2026 Reply filed: 5/6/2026
“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (CCP § 437c(a).) “The motion shall be granted if there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (CCP § 437c.) Where a plaintiff moves for summary judgment, it “has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)
Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853.)
1. Breach of Contract (1st Cause of Action)
Here, the undisputed evidence shows that Defendant applied for a line of credit from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff issued Defendant a credit card mailed to Defendant with a cardholder agreement. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [“PSS”] ¶ 1.) The agreement provided that activation or use of the card constituted acceptance of its terms. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Defendant activated and/or used the credit card, thereby accepting the agreement. (Id.) Defendant thereafter failed to pay as agreed, leaving an unpaid balance of $10,312.80. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
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?”
2. Common Counts (2nd Cause of Action)
Here, the undisputed evidence shows that pursuant to the agreement, money was extended to Defendant by way of credit, permitting Defendant to make charges on the account. (PSS¶¶ 1–3.) Plaintiff maintained an accounting of all credits and debits on the account through monthly account statements sent to Defendant every month, reflecting all charges, payments, the minimum payment due, the outstanding balance, and the interest rate calculated for each period. (Id. at ¶¶ 5–6.) Defendant made charges and payments and incurred a balance on the account but did not dispute any charges. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–9.) The balance due and owing on the account is $10,312.80. (Id. at ¶¶ 11–12.)
Based on the evidence provided, Plaintiff has met its initial burden of showing that no triable issues of fact exist as to this cause of action. The burden therefore shifts to Defendant, who has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact.
3. CCP § 437c(3): 30-Day Pre-Trial Requirement Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because the May 19, 2026 hearing date falls only 23 days before the June 11, 2026 trial date, in violation of CCP § 437c(3).
CCP § 437c(a)(3) provides, in relevant part, that the motion “shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” Here, the motion is to be heard on May 19, 2026, with a trial date of June 11, 2026, so fewer than thirty days before the date of trial. However, this argument is unavailing.
On February 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application to continue the trial date. The Court granted that application on February 26, 2026, finding good cause, and neither party contested the continuance. The Court’s February 26, 2026 order, which produced the current trial and hearing dates, itself constitutes good cause under CCP § 437c(a)(3) for hearing the motion within the 30-day window. Defendant has demonstrated no prejudice from this schedule. Thus, this argument is without merit.
4. Defendant’s Failure to File a Compliant Separate Statement As a further basis for granting the motion, Plaintiff notes that Defendant has failed to file a separate statement as required by CCP § 437c(b)(3) and CRC Rule 3.1350(f). That rule requires the opposing party to respond directly to each of the moving party’s statements of undisputed material fact, unequivocally stating whether each fact is “disputed” or “undisputed.” “[W]ithout a separate statement of undisputed facts with references to supporting evidence, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts.” (Lewis v. Cnty. of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 115.) Failure to comply with this requirement may constitute sufficient ground, in the Court’s discretion, for granting the motion. (CCP § 437c(b)(3).)
Defendant’s opposition consists solely of a procedural argument and contains no responsive separate statement, no evidence, and no specific facts demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. Defendant’s failure to submit any evidence or separate statement is dispositive.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Court to sign the proposed order.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME WELLS FARGO BANK, MOTION FOR AN ORDER CVME2514150 N.A. VS CRUME, AN DEEMING MATTERS ADMITTED INDIVIDUAL Tentative Ruling: Motion is unopposed. Motion is GRANTED. Requests for Admission propounded on 02/19/2026 are deemed admitted. Court to sign the proposed order.