TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION vs CAMILLE SMITH

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.

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.

Plaintiff to give notice. | Home -->)" -->