DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25NWLC68283·la·Civil·Breach of Contract
Hearing todayGRANTED

CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs ERIC A DESIONGCO

Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
Y
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCAPITAL ONE N.A.
DefendantERIC A DESIONGCO

Ruling

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to its cause of action for breach of contract. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and against Defendant Soon Chul Hong in the principal sum of $23,607.98, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Proposed Order will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff must submit a Memorandum of Costs and a declaration in support of reasonable attorney's fees as well as a Proposed Judgment for the Court's review and signature Plaintiff to give notice.

vs ERIC A DESIONGCO Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. ("Plaintiff"), including the declaration of counsel.

The Court finds that Plaintiff mailed Requests for Admission (RFA) to counsel for Defendant on March 24, 2026, and provided proof of service by mail. Plaintiff did not receive any responses from Defendant. Plaintiff mailed its Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted to counsel for Defendant on July 23, 2026, and provided proof of service by mail. The address for counsel for Defendant on both proofs of service match the address that is listed on the Answer. Having considered the moving papers, Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWLC73782 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: Y 25NWLC73782: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs DAVID A DILL Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ("Plaintiff"), including the declaration of counsel.

The Court finds that Plaintiff mailed Requests for Admission (RFA) to counsel for Defendant on January 27, 2026, and provided proof of service by mail. Plaintiff did not receive any responses from Defendant. Plaintiff mailed its Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted to counsel for Defendant on April 1, 2026, and provided proof of service by mail. The address for counsel for Defendant on both proofs of service match the address that is listed on the Answer. Having considered the moving papers, Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWLC75606 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: Y 25NWLC75606: LVNV FUNDING LLC vs VIVIANA E LARIOS MIRANDA Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC ("Plaintiff") in support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, including the meet and confer letter dated June 23, 2026. No opposition has been filed by Defendant Viviana E. Larios Miranda ("Defendant").

Pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452 and 453, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for the Court to take judicial notice of: Plaintiff's Complaint filed on December 15, 2025; The Court's Order Deeming Plaintiff's Requests for Admission as Admitted entered on June 24, 2026; and Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, and the Requests for Admission submitted in support of that motion, filed on May 14, 2026.

The Court finds the Request for Admissions admitted cannot reasonably be controverted at this stage of the proceedings. The Request for Admissions are tantamount to Defendant admitting the causes of action alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the Answer in conjunction with the admissions deemed admitted does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share