DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV451782·santaclara·Civil·Contract
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Wells Fargo Bank, N.a. vs Enrique Larahernandez

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Hearing date
May 29, 2026
Department
13
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$800.00

Parties

PlaintiffWells Fargo Bank, N.a.
DefendantEnrique Larahernandez

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240

DATE: May 29, 2026 TIME: 9:00 & 9:01 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24CV442463 Monar LLC, a California limited liability Motion: Compel company vs Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 24CV444291 Eric Hartman vs City of San Jose- Motion for Reclassification Finance Department et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 2 for tentative ruling. LINE 3 24CV451782 Wells Fargo Bank, N.a. vs Enrique Motion for Attorney’s Fees Larahernandez Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [“[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion ... is meritorious.”].) The Court awards Plaintiff $800.00 of attorney fees against Defendant Enrique Larahernandez.

Plaintiff shall prepare and submit the final order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 10 days of the date of the hearing.

2

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share