U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. JOSEPHINE MUNOZ GENOVA

A plaintiff has met her or his “burden of showing that 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

May 29, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________

If the plaintiff has met that burden, then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that:

 a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.

The defendant ... shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead,

 shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.

(Ibid. (formatting and bullet points added).) “Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party.” (Weiss v. People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 (Weiss) (citations omitted).) A trial court is justified in granting summary judgment “only if the declarations filed in support of it, strictly construed, contain facts sufficient to entitle the [proponents] to judgment, and those of the [opponents to the summary judgment motion], liberally construed, show that there was no issue of fact to be tried.” (Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412, 417.)

Summary judgment “is drastic and should be used with caution in order that it may not become a substitute for existing methods in the determination of issues of fact.” (Eagle Oil & Ref. Co. v. Prentice (1942) 19 Cal.2d 553, 556.) Indeed, issues of fact are to be found and not determined:

By an unbroken line of decision in this state since the date of the original enactment of section 437c, the principle has become well established that issue finding rather than issue determination is the pivot upon which the summary judgment law turns. (Walsh v. Walsh (1941) 18 Cal.2d 439, 441 (citations omitted).)

Ultimately, if the Court feels any uncertainty as to whether a grant of summary judgment is proper, “any doubts about the propriety of summary judgment must be resolved in favor of the opposing party.” (Mateel Env’t Just. Found. v. Edmund A. Gray Co. (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 8, 17 (Mateel) (citations omitted).)

Legal Standards for Breach of Contract

A cause of action for breach of contract requires proof of the following elements: (1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach.

(CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239 (Maldonado).)

The Motion Is GRANTED as to the First Cause of Action.

Plaintiff has shown admissible, competent evidence of the existence of the contract. The first Maldonado element is established. Plaintiff states that Exhibit A to its Declaration is the agreement at issue (Plaintiff’s Evidence, 1:22), and Plaintiff then declares that Exhibit A of its Declaration (hereinafter the “Denmark Declaration”) shows the terms and conditions of said agreement (Denmark Decl., ¶ 6).

May 29, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Although no signed agreement is shown, Defendant does not object in any way that the Denmark Exhibit does not reflect the current terms and conditions at issue. The Court does note that Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Declaration differs slightly from Exhibit A to the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “Complaint Exhibit”), which is alleged to be a copy of the agreement made between the parties on or about February 1, 2018 (Complaint, p.3, box BC-1 & Exh.

A). The agreements are largely the same, though the Declaration Exhibit has an Annual Percentage Rate (“APR”) of 27.49% (Declaration Exhibit, 1st page), while the Complaint Exhibit has an APR of 24.24% (Complaint Exhibit, 1st page). However, this difference is immaterial as the Complaint Exhibit has not been offered into evidence. Even if it were so offered, the terms are consistent as the Complaint Exhibit reflects the terms and conditions as of February 1, 2018, when the account was opened. The Complaint Exhibit expressly then allows changes to the terms, including to the APR.

Complaint Exhibit, 5th page, ¶30. The Denmark Exhibit, which is in evidence, then provides that it became effective November 19, 2024. Denmark Exhibit, 2nd page, section above ¶ 1. The Complaint then alleges a breach on or about February 28, 2025 for the failure to pay pursuant to the Agreement (Complaint, pg. 3, box BC-2.), and both the Complaint and Denmark Declaration attach the same final billing statement to defendant which under the Denmark Declaration is now in evidence. See, Complaint, pg. 16-19 as Exh.

B; and Denmark Declaration, pg. 17-20 as part of Exh. B. Thus, there is no factual dispute on the agreement’s terms.

The second Maldonado element is established as shown in the monthly statements that Plaintiff sent to Defendant from March 2023 to February 2025. (Denmark Decl., ¶ 8, & Exh. B). Though the statements shown are apparently not all of the statements of the alleged account, which is alleged to have been established under the parties’ agreement on or about February 1, 2018 (Complaint, p.3, box BC-1, & Exh. A), these statements show that Defendant made a payment of $1,200.00 on October 15, 2024 (Denmark Decl., p.35, in Exh.

B), and none thereafter with the final billing statement also attached therein. Thus, the third Maldonado element is established. The amount of $29,805.41 last shown to be outstanding (id., p.17, in Exh. B) establishes the fourth Maldonado element. Accordingly, Plaintiff has established the elements of the first cause of action, entitling it to judgment thereon (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1)). Therefore, the burden shifts to Defendant to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the causes of action or a defense thereto (ibid.).

To meet this burden, Defendant “shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing” the existence (ibid.). However, Defendant has filed no Opposition to the Motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(2).) While Defendant cannot rely on the denials of his pleadings to meet his burden on the Motion, Defendant’s Answer, even if it had been presented in Opposition, is unsworn, and shows no facts. As the Court of Appeal explains:

An issue of fact can only be created by a conflict of evidence. It is not created by “speculation, conjecture, imagination or guess work.” Further, an issue of fact is not raised by “cryptic, broadly phrased, and conclusory assertions” or mere possibilities. “Thus, while the court in determining a motion for summary judgment does not ‘try’ the case, the court is bound to consider the competency of the evidence presented.”

(Sinai Mem’l Chapel v. Dudler (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 190, 196-97 (Dudler) (multiple citations omitted).) Hence, there is no evidence in the record conflicting with Plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff argues that as evidenced by the Cardmember Agreement between the parties, and billing statements maintained by Plaintiff, Defendant has no defense to the Complaint. The Court agrees.

May 29, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Since “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” the Motion is GRANTED as to the first cause of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

The Motion Is DENIED as to Costs.

Plaintiff’s request for costs is procedurally improper. On September 22, 2025, when Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs (Summary) seeking $942.61 in costs ($870.00 for filing and motion fees, and $72.61 for service). However, the prevailing party must file and serve a Memorandum of Costs within 15 days after the date of service of notice of entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1034, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).) Any costs sought by Plaintiff must be claimed through this post-judgment procedure. To the extent to which the Motion seeks costs, it is DENIED without prejudice for Plaintiff to submit its Memorandum of Costs in compliance with the statute and the rule.

For the above reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. In addition to submitting a proposed Order after hearing per the instructions below, Plaintiff is to also submit a separate proposed Judgment form in conformity with this ruling.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.