Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV021459: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs WILLIFORD, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8D
Tentative Ruling NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.
If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.
Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV021459: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs WILLIFORD, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8D
a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION**** TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.s (Plaintiff) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted for the purposes appropriate for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 453, subd. (a); Johnson & Johnson v. Super. Ct. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein].)
This is a debt collection action related to a credit card account Plaintiff issued to Defendant Xavier C. Williford Jr (Defendant). On July 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem matters admitted. As a result, Defendant is deemed to have admitted, among other matters, that Plaintiff issued Defendant a credit card, that Plaintiff sent Defendant periodic statements related to the account, that Defendant never disputed the accuracy of any of the monthly billing statements for that account, that the principal amount owed is $24,779.34 (as alleged in the Complaint), that Defendants last payment on that account was on January 30, 2024 and that Defendant does not have any defenses to Plaintiffs Complaint.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made upon the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute cause(s) of action against the defendants and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(A).) The court must accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint and must give them a liberal interpretation. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516.) The court can also properly take judicial notice of facts deemed admitted in consideration for a judgment on the pleadings. (Columbia
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV021459: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs WILLIFORD, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 8D
Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.) [A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) Since there is no reasonable possibility that the defect could be cured by amendment, a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on matters deemed admitted is properly granted without leave to amend. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 138, 164 fn. 18.) When a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend, judgment shall be entered forthwith in accordance with the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(h)(3).)
Defendant does not oppose the motion. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
The Court declines to sign the proposed order and proposed judgment as they include an unsubstantiated award of costs. Plaintiff shall submit amended proposed order and proposed judgment for the Court’s signature. Plaintiff may seek its costs pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1700.