CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs MARSHALL

24CV020056: CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs MARSHALL 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV020056: CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs MARSHALL 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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.

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff Capital One, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant in pro per Devin L. Marshall (“Defendant”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted.

This is a debt collection action related to a credit card account Plaintiff issued to Defendant. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes a single cause of action for breach of contract. On May 7, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem matters admitted. As a result, Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV020056: CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs MARSHALL 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8C

is deemed to have admitted that he had a credit account issued by Plaintiff, that he received periodic statements regarding the account, that the balance owed on the account as of October 3, 2024 was $13,314.88, that no payments have been made on the account since October 3, 2024, and that the last payment was made within three years prior to October 3, 2024.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made upon the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(A).) The court must accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint and must give them a liberal interpretation. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516.) The court can also properly take judicial notice of facts deemed admitted in consideration for a judgment on the pleadings. (Columbia Casualty Co. v.

Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.) “[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.) While Defendant filed an answer raising certain affirmative defenses, the later admissions take precedence over the contrary allegations in the answer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605.)

Since there is no reasonable possibility that the defect could be cured by amendment, a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on matters deemed admitted is properly granted without leave to amend. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 138, 164 fn. 18.) When a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend, judgment shall be entered forthwith in accordance with the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(h)(3).)

Because the matters described above have been deemed admitted, Plaintiff has satisfied all elements of its breach of contract cause of action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. Leave to amend is DENIED.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers. Plaintiff is directed to submit an amended proposed judgment that does not include an award of costs. Plaintiff may claim costs pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1700(a). The memorandum of costs filed by Plaintiff on July 24, 2026 is stricken.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.