WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS JAMES C MATTOCKS

May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 18 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 6 25-CLJ-04478 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS JAMES C MATTOCKS

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. EDGAR B LOPEZ JAMES C MATTOCKS PRO SE

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed Motion of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff) for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART against Defendant James C Mattocks (Defendant).

A motion for judgment on the pleadings by the plaintiff may be made on the ground that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant, and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the Complaint allege facts sufficient to support these claims, and Defendant’s Answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint. Although Plaintiff addresses six causes of action, including four common count claims, the Complaint only alleges two causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; and (2) Breach of Implied Contract. Nevertheless, since Plaintiff’s Motion addresses the two claims actually pleaded, the court proceeds to rule on the Motion to the causes of action alleged in the Complaint.

The Complaint alleges facts sufficient to support the First and Second Causes of Action.

The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach of the contract, and (4) the resulting damage to plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) The First and Second Causes of Action allege that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract, Plaintiff performed all obligations except those obligations Plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing, Defendant breached the contract, and Plaintiff suffered $18,650.31 in damages. (Complaint, pp. 3-4.) Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to support the First and Second Causes of Action for breach of contract.

Defendant’s Answer fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint.

“On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may take judicial notice of something that cannot reasonably be controverted, even if it negates an express allegation of the pleading.”

May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 19 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ (Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549, disapproved on another ground in Black Sky Capital, LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156.) A court may take judicial notice of a party’s admissions or concessions, but only in cases where the admission cannot reasonably be controverted such as answers to requests for admissions. (Acre v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.)

While Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses, the court subsequently ordered that Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions were deemed admitted against Defendant. (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 3.) As part of these admissions, Defendant admits to owing $18,650.31 on the credit card and to not having any defenses to the Complaint. (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 3.) Since the court deemed these matters admitted, they cannot reasonably be controverted. Defendant therefore cannot allege facts sufficient to constitute a defense. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Judgment Judgment is to be entered for $18,650.31 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

Costs

Although Plaintiff requests $430.00, the request for costs is premature. Plaintiff is directed to comply with the proper procedure for seeking costs by filing a memorandum of costs after a judgment is entered. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order and proposed judgment consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.