CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. vs 786 BEST FOODS INC, et al.

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. Y) September 2, 2026 DEPARTMENT Y LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., vs 786 BEST FOODS INC, et al.

Tentative Ruling

Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted: The Court has read and considered Plaintiff Creditor Adjustment Bureau, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") Motion for Order that the Truth of the Matters Be Deemed Admitted, including the declaration of counsel and attached exhibits. No opposition has been filed by Defendant Mohammad Islam ("Defendant").

The Court finds that Plaintiff served Requests for Admission (RFA) on Defendant, who is self-represented, on June 11, 2026 and filed proof of service by mail. Other than certain documents that were provided, Plaintiff did not receive any verified responses to the RFAs. Plaintiff served the instant motion by July 29, 2026, and filed proof of service by mail. The address reflected on both proofs of service match the address Defendant provided in the Answer.

Having considered the moving papers, Plaintiff's Motion for Order that the Truth of the Matters Be Deemed Admitted is GRANTED.

The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's request for sanctions in the amount of $1,822.75, consisting of attorney's fees for the preparation of this motion and attendance at this hearing as wells as filing costs. The Attorney Declaration states that counsel's hourly rate is $700 per hour. The Court finds Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees unreasonable and disproportionate for a collections case.

The Court AWARDS sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Mohammad Islam in the amount of $397.75, comprised of: (1) one hour for preparation at a discounted rate of $250; (2) $75 for counsel's appearance; and (3) filing costs of $60 plus a $12.75 e-filing fee. The Court will revise and sign the Proposed Order to reflect the Court's ruling. Plaintiff to give notice.

Tentative Ruling: Motions to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Second Demand for Production and Special Interrogatories, Set Two

Plaintiff Creditor Adjustment Bureau, Inc. ("Plaintiff") also filed two additional motions to compel discovery responses in connection with Defendant Mohammad Islam's ("Defendant") failure to respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Second Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Proposed by Plaintiff to Defendant (Set Two). Both motions include requests for monetary sanctions. No oppositions have been filed by Defendant. For the reasons stated below, both motions are DENIED.

On June 11, 2026--the same date Plaintiff served the RFAs--Plaintiff served its Request for Production, Set Two, which contained a single request: "6. For every Request for Admission served on YOU concurrently with these Demands that was not an unequivocal admission, please state the number of Requests for Admission and provide all documents and/or WRITINGS in support of YOUR response." The Court notes that Plaintiff's proof of service appears to reference service in 2025 rather than 2026.

On the same date, Plaintiff also served Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which contained a single interrogatory: "10. For every Request for Admission served on YOU concurrently with these special interrogatories that was not an unequivocal admission, please provide the Request for Admission and state all facts in support of YOUR response." No other documents requests or special interrogatories were propounded on Defendant with Set Two.

Defendant did not respond to the RFAs. Defendant likewise did not respond to the Request for Production or Special Interrogatory, Set Two.

The Court finds these two motions to compel are not substantially justified and are not reasonably calculated to obtain discovery independent of the RFAs. Each Set Two request is expressly contingent on Defendant providing non-admissions and supporting information in response to the RFAs--responses Defendant never served. Under these circumstances, the motions to compel Set Two responses are, at best, premature and, in practical effect, serve no legitimate discovery purpose.

It is a misuse of the discovery process to make, "unsuccessfully, and without substantial justification, a motion to compel ... discovery." Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010(h). The Court further finds that filing motions to compel predicated on discovery that cannot meaningfully be answered absent RFA responses--while simultaneously seeking sanctions--constitutes an abuse of the discovery process and an improper attempt to leverage discovery motion practice through unmeritorious motions to compel.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Second Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is DENIED. Plaintiff's requests for monetary sanctions in connection with these motions are also DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWLC62593 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: Y 25NWLC62593: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs LESLEE VILLEDA, AN INDIVIDUAL

Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed all moving documents filed by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Plaintiff") in support of its motion for summary judgment, including the separate statement and supporting evidence. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was filed on April 13, 2026 and set for hearing on September 2, 2026. No opposition has been filed by Defendant Leslee Villeda ("Defendant").

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its initial burden of showing there are no triable issues of material fact as to Plaintiff's causes of action for (1) breach of written contract and (2) breach of contract (implied in fact), by presenting evidence establishing each element of those causes of action and entitling Plaintiff to summary judgment.

Plaintiff has shown, through admissible evidence, that Defendant was issued the subject credit card by Plaintiff; Defendant was the only person authorized to make charges on the account; Defendant received monthly statements for the account; and there is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account. (Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") Nos. 1-10, 15-24.) The evidence further shows Defendant's last payment on the account was April 4, 2025, and Defendant owes Plaintiff an unpaid balance of $16,348.44 on the credit account. (Id., UMF Nos. 11-14, 25-28.)

The burden having shifted to Defendant, the Court finds Defendant has failed to set forth specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to any of the elements of the causes of action for breach of contract or that there is any defense thereto required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(1).

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to its causes of action for breach of contract. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and against Defendant Leslee Villeda in the principal sum of $16,348.44, plus court costs in the amount of $920.00 for a total judgment in the sum of $17,308.44. The Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 26NWLC28458 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: Y 26NWLC28458: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION vs CAMILLE SMITH

Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Toyota Motor Credit Corporation ("Plaintiff"), and the supporting attorney declaration. Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal("Motion") has been served on Defendant Camille Smith and no opposition has been filed.

In its Motion, Plaintiff requests to vacate and set aside the dismissal entered on May 28, 2026 and restore the case to active status. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(b), the Court has authority to relieve, on such terms as are just, a party or party's legal representative from a judgment taken against the party because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect.

Here, Plaintiff's counsel has presented evidence that the dismissal was entered through Plaintiff's counsel's mistake. Based on the declaration submitted by Plaintiff, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal. This case is returned to active status.