Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. Robert Juarez

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. Robert Juarez 24CV002073

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Pursuant to the Declaration of Edgar Lopez filed in support of the Motion, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of Judgment in the amount of $5,912.59.

The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.

The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. move, pursuant to California Code of Civil procedure 664.6, to vacate the dismissal and enter Judgment pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation.

The Court finds good cause for entering judgment based on the Parties’ stipulated settlement, filed February 7, 2025, this Court’s Order of February 14, 2025, and the Declaration of Edgar B. Lopez filed in support of the instant motion (Lopez Decl.). No opposition appears in the Court’s file.

However, the amount calculated in the Judgment is inconsistent with the amounts set forth in the Lopez Decl. Specifically, Mr. Lopez declares that, “the Stipulation provides that ‘[j]udgment may be entered forthwith in favor of Plaintiff and against said Defendant in the total sum of $9,707.12 plus costs, minus credit for any payments actually made pursuant to this Stipulation For Entry of Judgment and Installment Payments (“Stipulation”).’” (Lopez Decl. at ¶ 8.) He also declares that “Defendant has . . . made payments totaling $4,069.53 . . ..” (Id. at ¶ 4.) Finally, Lopez declares that Plaintiff has incurred an additional “$225 filing fee and $50.00 service of process.” (Id. at ¶ 8.) Pursuant to the foregoing, the proper amount of judgment is [$9,707.12 - $4069.53 + $225 + $50 =] $5,912.59.