AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NGUYEN, et al.

25CV008482: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NGUYEN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication 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

25CV008482: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NGUYEN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

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 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. ***

Plaintiff American Express National Bank’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary judgment against Defendant Michael Nguyen (“Defendant”) is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

Factual Background

This is an action based on collection of debt owed on a credit card. Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant.

Defendant applied to Plaintiff for a credit card account and entered into a written credit card account agreement with Plaintiff for the account number ending in 1008 (the “Account”) on April 15, 2019. (See Plaintiff’s Undisputed Material Fact [“UMF”] 1.) Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the Cardmember Agreement when the Defendant applied for, received or used the credit card account. In addition, the Cardmember Agreement provides that use of the card constitutes acceptance of the agreement. (UMF 2.)

After receiving the credit card, purchases were made by the use of the account and the charging of various goods, services and cash advances. Plaintiff complied with its obligations under the Agreement by paying vendors for all charges that were made on Defendant’s account. The principal balance of $23,363.68 prayed for in the Complaint results from the Defendant’s use of said account. (UMF, 3, 8.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008482: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NGUYEN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

Defendant received billing statements, yet failed to produce any evidence indicating that Defendant disputed any portion of any billing statement. (UMFs 4, 5.) Defendant defaulted by failing to make payments on the account as they became due. (UMF 6). The last payment applied to the account was on or about November 20, 2024. (UMF 7.)

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment against Defendant.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Department of Transportation (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings; the Court cannot consider an unpled issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(1) explains that a plaintiff or cross-complainant moving for summary judgment/adjudication “[meets] that party’s burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” Only when “the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden” does the burden shift to the defendant or cross-defendant “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008482: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NGUYEN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

In order to establish a breach of contract, the plaintiff must show: (1) the execution of a valid contract; (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) the defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damage to plaintiff. (See Reichert v. General Insurance Co. 1968 68 Cal.2d 822, 830. “As to the basic elements [of a contract cause of action], there is no difference between an express and implied contract... While an implied in fact contract may be inferred from the conduct, situation or mutual relation of the parties, the very heart of this kind of agreement is an intent to promise.” (See Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Transpacific Transportation Co., (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 268, 275; see also Friedman v. Friedman (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 876, 888.)

Plaintiff’s proffered undisputed material facts, set forth above, establish that Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and breached the contract by failing to make promised payments on the credit card account. Plaintiff’s undisputed material facts submitted in support of its motion satisfy its initial burden to demonstrate that no triable issue of material fact exists on its cause of action against Defendant.

Having failed to oppose the motion, Defendant cannot meet his burden to demonstrate a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

This minute order is effective immediately. The Court will sign the order submitted with the moving papers.

The Court will not sign the proposed judgment as it includes a specific dollar amount for court costs. Plaintiff may seek costs pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700 after judgment has been entered.