ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC vs DEOCAMPO

24CV007474: ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC vs DEOCAMPO 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

24CV007474: ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC vs DEOCAMPO 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Onemain Financial Group, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for judgment on the pleadings is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, without leave to amend.

This matter was previously continued to provide Plaintiff additional time to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a) and to file the requisite declaration by August 12, 2026. On August 12, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration recounting numerous attempts to meet and confer, via telephone, without success. (Agne Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) The Court finds that the supplemental declaration meets the requirements of section 439(a). As such, the Court proceeds to the merits of the pending motion.

This is a consumer collection action in which Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and common counts, including open book and account stated, against Defendant Miguel Deocampo (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a); § 452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007474: ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC vs DEOCAMPO 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8D

constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., §438(c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the motion shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice (Id. at §438(d).) The court properly takes judicial notice of the fact that defendant has admitted the allegations of the complaint. Indeed, the court will take judicial notice of records, such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer [or motion for judgment on the pleadings]. (Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482; Morris v. Harbor Boat Bldg. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 882, 886; Columbia Cas. Co. v. Northwestern. Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604- 605.)

Thus, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may extend consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice; in doing so, the Court performs essentially the same task as ruling on a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146.) Additionally, the Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.) “A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendant’s pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (MacIsaac v.

Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.)

Here, the complaint properly alleges the requisite allegations for breach of contract and common counts. Further, as seen from the request for judicial notice, Plaintiff’s requests for admission have been deemed admitted. Specifically, it has been deemed admitted that: (1) Defendant had a credit card account with Plaintiff; (2) Defendant received periodic statements; (3) the balance owed on the account was $6,979.94 as of April 16, 2024; (4) no payments have been made on the account since April 16, 2024; and (5) that the Loan Agreement and Disclosure Statement was applicable to the account. It is also deemed admitted that Defendant does not have a credit defense and that the affirmative defenses Defendant asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.

Although Defendant filed an answer with a general denial and raising certain affirmative defenses, the later admissions take precedence over the contrary allegations in the answer. (Del E. Webb Corp., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at 604-605 [“The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007474: ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC vs DEOCAMPO 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8D

the court”].) “[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.)

Based upon these admissions, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff, without leave to amend.

The Court will sign the proposed order. Plaintiff shall prepare a proposed judgment pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.