Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Maria Duran

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns Superior Court of California County of San Benito

Tentative Decisions for August 21, 2026

Courtroom #2: Judge Pro Tempore Page Galloway

CL-25-00833 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Maria Duran 8-21-2026

On calendar for Plaintiff’s 7-24-2026 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and of Nonappearance

The motion is unopposed as of this writing.

Plaintiff: Douglas Agne (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.)

Defendant: Self Represented (Maria Duran)

This is a case for the collection of consumer debt. 10-10-2025 Complaint for $16,462.37, plus costs of suit and attorney’s fees based on 1) Breach of Contract. This case involves efforts to collect on consumer debt.

11-12-2025 Defendant Answers admitting all statements in the complaint are true except: that she asserts she is not presently working and is currently unable to pay, but is open to make arrangements to pay the obligation.

4-27-2026: The court Grants the Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted matters in the Plaintiff’s Request for admissions and to deem admitted the genuineness of documents referenced in the Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions.

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns 7-24-2026 Plaintiff Moves for an order granting Plaintiff’s Judgment on the Pleadings and to enter judgment of $16,462.37 in principal balance due, plus costs of 570.00, plus reasonable attorney’s fees of $800.00, for a total judgment of $17,832.37.

Defendant filed an answer which admitted the underlying breach and offered no valid affirmative defenses, even if true. (RJN, EX A.) Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s request for Admissions which were served on her on or about 12-5-2025. On 1-29-2026 Plaintiff moved to have the matters in the requests for admissions deemed admitted. The court granted that motion on 4-24-2026, a true and correct copy of the motion to deem admitted and the order granting the motion are attached to the Request for Judicial notice as exhibits B and C.

On May 21, 2026 Plaintiff served the Defendant with a meet and confer letter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 439 in a final attempt to settle the matter. (Agne Declaration Ex A.) No settlement has been reached. There has been no communication from Defendant.

The court has the inherent power to provide for the orderly conduct of process to have them conform to law and justice. (CCP§128 sub (a)(3), (8).) Judgment on the pleadings is a well-established practice for the court, and the court has power to give judgment on the pleadings when there are grounds to do so. (1 Cal. Civ. Proc. Before Trial §34.2 (Cal CEB 1990); 6 Witkin, Cal Proc., Proceedings Without Trial,§262 (3rd ed, 1985).) Here, the grounds are that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, thus judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. (CCP§438 sub (c)(1)(A).)

Any material allegations in the complaint that are not effectively denied are deemed admitted. (CCP§431.20 sub (a).) Thus, Defendant’s Answer is deemed to admit all statements in the Complaint as true. (Defendant’s answer on File with the Court, RJN Ex A.) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment as prayed in complaint, to wit, the principal sum due, costs, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff will submit a memorandum of costs and fees upon granting of the motion.

Declaration re costs and attorney’s fees were filed concurrently on 7-24-2026. The memorandum of costs provides details of the filing and motion fees, the cost for service, and the claimed attorney’s fees. The attorney’s fees declaration requests attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ. Code §1717, and Ex 1, attached to the complaint. They argue that based on the time expended the fees would exceed the Default Schedule of reasonable Attorney Fees. However, they request fees only of $800.00

Legal Authority and Analysis: Code of Civil Procedure section 438 governs motions for Judgment on the pleadings. Such motion may be made only on the grounds provided in the statute at sub part (c)(1): ́ “(A) If the moving party is a plaintiff, that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (CCP§438 sub (d).) When the motion is based on matters of which the court may take judicial notice . . . the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities., except as the court may otherwise permit.

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns (Id.) The code does permit the court to grant the motion with leave to file either an amended complaint or answer, as the case may be, and if so, the court is to grant 30 days to the party against whom the motion was granted to file an amended answer or complaint. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is thus the equivalent of a demurrer and is governed by the same standards of review. (Pang v.

Beverly Hsp., Inc. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 986, 989.) Here, the basis for the motion is that the Answer fails to state facts, even if true, sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint. The Answer admits the underlying breach and offers no actual defense to the claims, but rather a factual assertion that she has faced certain intervening financial difficulties. At law, this is not a defense, nor is it something which excuses performance at law.

The court may consider, in addition to the facts pleaded, matters that can be judicially noticed, which include a party’s admissions or concessions. In the case at bar, the Defendant’s answer admits all relevant facts pled in the underlying Complaint. A review of the complaint herein shows that the complaint states facts sufficient to state a cause of action against the defendant. Moreover, the matters deemed admitted support the relevant facts pled in the underlying complaint.

Proposed rulings: The court grants the request for judicial notice. The court has reviewed the attorney’s fees sought and concurs that the amount requested is below the amount authorized by the default schedule, is reasonable, and will be granted. The costs sought are reasonable and appropriate. The Court grants the motion and will enter judgment of $16,462.37 in principal balance due, plus costs of 570.00, plus reasonable attorney’s fees of $800.00, for a total judgment of $17,832.37, as prayed.

The court notes that the Plaintiff has filed an identical motion set for calendar 10-30-2026 which seeks the exact same relief on the same basis as the motion heard today. The court therefore takes the motion set for 10-30-2026 off calendar: it is now moot.

CL-25-00108 8-21-2026 Capital One, N.A. successor by merger to Discover Bank v. Leah Gamayon

On calendar for Plaintiff’s 5-11-2026 motion for summary judgment.

At the time of this writing the motion is unopposed.

Plaintiff: Stella Park (Capital One, N.A.)

Defendant: Robert Shephard (Leah Gamayon)