American Express National Bank v. Olga Buchonina

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 20, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV451704 Teresa Bucciarelli et al. v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Alem Imru et al. Line 2 24CV453289 American Express National Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. Bank v. Olga Buchonina Line 3 25CV471047 Hang Sheng et al. v. Defendants Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. and Preg San Prometheus Real Estate Antonio Apartments, LP’s motion to compel further responses to Group, Inc. et al. (1) form and special interrogatories, set one, against plaintiff Hang Sheng; and (2) special interrogatories, set one, against plaintiff Chao Xu.

Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by plaintiffs. Defendants’ meet and confer declaration regarding e-mail messages sent to plaintiffs does not comply with the current version of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, subdivision (a), which requires “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Italics added.) Defendants’ motion also lacks the separate statement required for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2).) The court declines defendants’ request to overlook those deficiencies. The motion to compel is denied. The court will prepare the order. Line 4 25CV473914 Gyorgy Sofalvi v. Ford Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Motor Company, a Delaware corporation et al.

Calendar Line 2 Case Name: American Express National Bank v. Olga Buchonina Case No.: 24CV453289

At issue is plaintiff American Express National Bank’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Olga Buchonina in this credit card collections action. Notice is proper and no timely opposition was filed. Failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the non-moving party has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489.)

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no triable issue of material fact as to one or more elements of a particular cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1), (o)(1).) The court identifies the causes of action framed by the pleadings. The court then determines whether the plaintiff as the moving party has carried its burden to show that there is no defense to any cause of action by proving each element of the causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) If the plaintiff makes that prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the causes of action, or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) “The defendant or crossdefendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

The complaint alleges one causes of action against defendant—breach of written contract. That cause of action has the following elements: (1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach. (Aton Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1230.)

Plaintiff’s motion is supported by evidence showing that defendant obtained a credit card account from plaintiff that was subject to a cardmember agreement contract; defendant accepted the terms of that contract by using the credit card; plaintiff extended credit and performed all its obligations under the contract; defendant breached the contract by not making all required payments; and plaintiff suffered damages of $8,075.38 (i.e., the balance due on the credit card). Plaintiff satisfied its initial burden as to both causes of action. Defendant did not oppose the motion. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.

Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs in February 2026, seeking $797.61 in costs. Defendant forfeited any challenge to the amount of those costs by not timely filing a motion to tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).)

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed judgment indicating damages of $8,075.38 in damages and $797.61 in costs. The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo - 5