WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS CRUME, AN INDIVIDUAL

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.” (