WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHRISTOPHER J FUSCO

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. Y) September 10, 2026 DEPARTMENT Y LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

N.A. vs MARGOT J EVANS Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Capital One, 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 February 18, 2026 and filed with the Court on March 13, 2026. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on April 22, 2026.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $417.00, leaving an outstanding amount of $1,668.08 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 Capital One, N.A. and against Defendant Margot J. Evans for the principal sum of $1,668.08 plus court costs of $603.61, for a total judgment of $2,271.69.

The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 25NWLC66874 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: Y

25NWLC66874: CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs NICOLE R FERNANDEZ Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Capital One, 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 December 17, 2025 and filed with the Court on January 6, 2026. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on February 13, 2026.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $1,552.00, leaving an outstanding amount of $1,150.19 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 Capital One, N.A. and against Defendant Nicole R. Fernandez for the principal sum of $1,150.19 plus court costs of $603.61, for a total judgment of $1,753.80.

The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 25NWLC69625 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: Y

25NWLC69625: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHRISTOPHER J FUSCO, AN INDIVIDUAL Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Plaintiff") in support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, including the meet and confer letter dated June 30, 2026. No opposition has been filed by Defendant Christopher J. Fusco ("Defendant"). Pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452 and 453, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for the Court to take judicial notice of: Plaintiff's Complaint filed on November 20, 2025; The Court's Order Deeming Plaintiff's Requests for Admission as Admitted entered on June 23, 2026; and Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, and the Requests for Admission submitted in support of that motion, filed on May 22, 2026.

The Court finds the Request for Admissions admitted cannot reasonably be controverted at this stage of the proceedings. The Request for Admissions are tantamount to Defendant admitting the causes of action alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the Answer in conjunction with the admissions deemed admitted does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. The Court orders Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and against Defendant Christopher J.

Fusco for the principal sum of $15,256.74 plus costs in the amount of $430.00 for a total Judgment of $15,686.74. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 26NWLC23486 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: Y

26NWLC23486: SYNCHRONY BANK vs ROSLYN RAMEY Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Defendant Roslyn Ramey ("Defendant"), the opposition filed by Plaintiff Synchrony Bank ("Plaintiff"), and the relevant court records. Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons ("Motion") was originally set for hearing on June 2, 2026. At that hearing, Defendant advised the Court that Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant's minor son. The Court continued the hearing to September 10, 2026 to permit Defendant to file a supplemental declaration.

On July 7, 2026, Defendant filed additional declarations under penalty of perjury from herself and from her son, Amir Morris. Defendant specially appears and moves to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, contending she was not properly served and that the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over her. Plaintiff contends Defendant was served by substituted service at Defendant's undisputed residence address--the same address used in Defendant's motion papers--on May 5, 2026, and that a copy of the Summons and Complaint was mailed to Defendant on May 6, 2026.

Plaintiff further argues Defendant had notice of the action because she filed the Motion on May 7, 2026. Plaintiff contends substituted service was valid and Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the rebuttable presumption arising from the filed Proof of Service. Evidence Code section 647 creates a rebuttable presumption that service was properly effected when a registered process server files a proof of service. The party challenging service bears the burden to present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption. (Evid.

Code, Sec.Sec. 647, 660.) Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b) governs substituted service and requires, among other things, that the summons and complaint be left with a competent member of the household who is at least 18 years of age. Here, a Proof of Service of Summons reflecting substituted service by a registered process server was filed on May 6, 2026, giving rise to the presumption under Evidence Code section 647. The Proof of Service states that "John Doe" was served on May 5, 2026 at 10:55 a.m., and estimates the age of the person served as 18-25 years old.

Defendant submits a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the process server left the documents with Defendant's son, who was 17 years old at the time of service. Defendant also submits a declaration under penalty of perjury from her son confirming he was served. On this record, the Court finds Defendant has rebutted the presumption of valid substituted service. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED. The clerk shall give notice. Case Number: 26NWLC28821 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: Y

26NWLC28821: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs DANIEL FONDA Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Defendant Daniel Fonda's ("Defendant") Motion to Quash Service of Summons ("Motion"), including the supporting declaration. Defendant's Motion was initially set for hearing on July 22, 2026. The Court continued the hearing on the