DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22NWLC29316·la·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayGRANTED

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. vs IDELFONSO GUTIERREZ, JR

Motion to set aside order of dismissal and enter judgment

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
Y
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$9,337.33$12,792.00

Parties

PlaintiffJPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
DefendantIDELFONSO GUTIERREZ, JR

Ruling

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. Y) August 20, 2026 DEPARTMENT Y LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

CHASE BANK, N.A. vs IDELFONSO GUTIERREZ, JR Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Plaintiff"), including the supporting declaration.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Stipulation Agreement; Jurisdiction Retained Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 signed by Defendant on July 2, 2024 and filed with the Court on July 15, 2024. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on July 17, 2024.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $9,337.33, leaving an outstanding amount of $12,792.00 due and owing.

Based on the Stipulation signed by the parties and the moving papers submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Order Dismissing this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is set aside. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and against Defendant Idelfonso Gutierrez, Jr. for the principal sum of $12,792.00 plus court costs of $0, for a total judgment of $12,792.00. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 24NWLC07336 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: Y

24NWLC07336: NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. AS ASSIGNEE OF CROSS RIVER BANK, SERVICED BY UPGRADE, I vs EDUARDO CARRILLO Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff NCB Management Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), including the supporting declaration.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment signed by Defendant on May 30, 2024 and filed with the Court on June 21, 2024. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to C.C.P. section 664.6 entered by the Court on July 2, 2024.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $1,000.00, leaving an outstanding amount of $4,288.14 due and owing.

Based on the Stipulation signed by the parties and the moving papers submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Order dismissing this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is set aside. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff NCB Management Services, Inc. and against Defendant Eduardo Carillo for the principal sum of $5,288.14, plus previous court costs of $319.89, $225.00 for Defendant's first appearance fee, $16.23 e-filing fee, $60.00 motion fee, less $1,000.00 for payments made to date, for a total judgment sum of $4,909.26. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 24NWLC16712 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: Y

24NWLC16712: CITIBANK N.A. vs MELISSA ARREGUIN Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. ("Plaintiff"), including the supporting declaration.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Stipulation Agreement; Jurisdiction Retained Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 signed by Defendant on August 29, 2024 and filed with the Court on October 24, 2024. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on October 29, 2024.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $500.25, leaving an outstanding amount of $2,166.83 due and owing.

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