WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs ACEBES, CELESTE

Plaintiff's neglect caused millions of dollars in damage and Plaintiff sold at a reduced price. SUSTAINED The paragraph contains: improper expert valuation opinions, speculative causation, unsupported damage estimates, legal conclusions regarding negligence. No valuation expert or foundation appears to support those opinions.

Objection No. 17 Paragraph 18: Plaintiff failed to secure the property despite warnings. Recommended Ruling: OVERRULED IN PART / SUSTAINED IN PART Overruled regarding statements that Hoggan communicated concerns about security. Sustained regarding conclusions that Plaintiff's actions caused subsequent damage absent expert or foundation testimony.

Remaining Objections (Paragraphs alleging further deterioration, refusal to complete the project, rejection of a $7 million buyer, and resulting loss of value.) SUSTAINED IN PART Overruled as to facts showing discussions with potential buyers and communications personally observed. Sustained as to: market value opinions, assertions the offer was superior, claims of resulting deficiency, assertions that Plaintiff's conduct caused a particular decrease in value. Those matters require valuation evidence and expert foundation not supplied by the declaration.

CV-24-005387 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs ACEBES, CELESTE - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal Under C.C.P. 664.6 & Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation - GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the parties of October 2024, and Defendant's failure to pay the sums due under said Agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. The Court's dismissal order of December 3, 2024 is hereby set aside and vacated. Pursuant to said agreement and including costs and fees of $300, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $1,608.00. (Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

CV-24-010156 - SYNCHRONY BANK vs MONET, LARYAH - Plaintiff's Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant's Default Under Settlement and Release Agreement - GRANTED, unopposed.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of January 7, 2025, and Defendant's failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement as well as costs as agreed upon in said Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted.