DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24NWLC53626·la·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayGRANTED

CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC vs MICHELLE CASTELAN

Motion for Judgment

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
Y
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$600.00$10,775.15$615.32$11,390.47

Parties

PlaintiffCrown Asset Management, LLC
DefendantMichelle Castelan

Ruling

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. Y) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT Y LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

CHASE BANK, N.A. vs CHRISTINA A GUTIERREZ 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 November 25, 2024 and filed with the Court on March 19, 2026. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on March 27, 2026.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $3,108.00, leaving an outstanding amount of $3,086.98 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 Christina Gutierrez for the principal balance of $6,194.98, less credits of $3,108.00, plus court costs of zero, for a total judgment of $3,086.98. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 24NWLC53626 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: Y

24NWLC53626: CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC vs MICHELLE CASTELAN Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Crown Asset Management, LLC ("Plaintiff"), including the supporting declaration.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Settlement Agreement With Mutual Release And Stipulation For Entry of Judgment ("Stipulation") signed by Defendant on or about January 22, 2026 and filed with the Court on June 26, 2026 with the moving papers. No opposition has been filed by Defendant.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $600.00, leaving an outstanding amount of $10,775.15 due and owing.

Based on the Stipulation signed by the parties and the moving papers submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Crown Asset Management, LLC and against Defendant Michele Castelan for damages in the principal amount of $10,775.15, plus costs of $615.32, or a total judgment of $11,390.47. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 24NWLC55814 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: Y

24NWLC55814: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A vs CINTHIA URZUA, AN INDIVIDUAL Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Wells Fargo, N.A. ("Plaintiff").

The Court takes judicial notice of the Stipulation Agreement; Jurisdiction Retained Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 signed by Defendant on May 28, 2025 and filed with the Court on August 1, 2025. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on August 15, 2025.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $2,311.56, leaving an outstanding amount of $3,800.00 due and owing.

Based on the Stipulation signed by the parties and the moving papers submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

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