Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rocio Diaz DeLeon

Superior Court of California County of San Benito

Tentative Decisions for June 5, 2026

Courtroom #2: Judge Pro Tempore Page Galloway

CL-25-00815 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rocio Diaz DeLeon 6-5-2026

On calendar for Plaintiff’s 2-18-26 motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff: Stephanie Ramos (Wells Fargo N.A.)

Defendant: Alexis Pearson (Rocio Diaz DeLeon)

This case arises from a Complaint to collect on a consumer debt.

10-3-2025: Complaint filed asserting two causes of action 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Breach of Contract (implied in fact). Plaintiff seeks $9531.18 in damages plus costs of suit. The underlying issue is the claim that Defendant was issued a credit card on or about 4-7-2022, pursuant to written agreement. The Defendant accepted the card and used the card to purchase goods, services, and /or to make cash advances. In exchange for use of the card the Defendant agreed to repay the principal along with interest and other charges. On or about 9-8-2024 the Defendant ceased making any further payments on the card, breaching the contract and as a result the Plaintiff suffered damages as stated herein. This suit follows.

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Mary Salmeron, at (831) 636-4057 x128 or msalmeron@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns

12-10-2025: Defendant Answers with a general denial and asserting seventeen affirmative defenses. The answer is unverified.

2-18-2026: Plaintiff details the facts alleged underlying the complaint. They note that there are no facts in dispute on this issue. Further, they served the Defendant with written discovery consisting of requests for admissions. (Ex 1 to Lopez Decl.) Defendant responded to discovery, admitting both that they were issued the card in question and were the only person authorized to make charges on the account. (Ex 2 to Lopez Decl.) There are no disputes as to any material fact. The Defendant was issued the card ending 1614 (UMF 1, 15); Defendant was sent the customer agreement along with the card. (UMF 2, 16); Defendant was the only person authorized to charge on the card; Defendant was sent monthly statements for the account (UMF 7, 21); there is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account. (UMF 9, 10, 23,24) Evidence shows the balance owed Plaintiff is $9531.18. (UMF 8,22) Summary Judgment is appropriate as there are no issues of material facts in dispute.

There is no opposition nor any evidentiary objections to the Plaintiff’s UMFs in File.

Legal Authorities and Analysis: The rules governing review of an order granting summary judgment are well established. A motion for summary judgment "shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A defendant carries the initial burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by demonstrating that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or a complete defense to it exists. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a triable issue exists. (Ibid.) The evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion must be liberally construed, and all doubts concerning the evidence must be resolved in favor of that party. (Fisherman’s Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320–321, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 628.) Motion for summary adjudication follows the same basic legal precepts and requirements, however, unlike a summary judgment, it need not resolve the case entirely, but may eliminate certain causes of action if, as with a Summary Judgment, the moving party shows that there is no issue of material fact warranting trial.

To show a breach of contract the Plaintiff must establish 1) the execution of a valid contract; 2) Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance of the contract; 3) Defendant’s breach of the contract; 4) damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the breach. (Reichert v. Gen. Ins. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. Rptr., 321, 325.) There is no difference as to the basic elements of a contract cause of action between a written contract and a contract implied in fact. Though a contract implied in fact is inferred from conduct, the situation or mutual

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Mary Salmeron, at (831) 636-4057 x128 or msalmeron@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns

relation of the parties, the core issue therein is the intent to promise. (Divis. Of Labor Law Enforcement v. Transpacific Transportation Co. (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3rd 268, 275, Friedman v. Friedman (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 876, 888.) There is no factual dispute that can be ascertained from the UMF provided by the Plaintiff. The terms of the written agreement are clear on the face of the customer agreement associated with the card. Credit was extended to the Defendant, which was used to purchase goods, services, or make cash advances in exchange for the repayment of the principal sums, interest, and fees associated with the account.

There are no asserted facts to show that there was any dispute as to the charges made that were pending at the time of this suit, and no facts presented which contradict the record provided showing the balance owed. (Declaration of Plaintiff’s qualified witness, ex 2.)

Proposed ruling: There being no dispute as to any of the material facts asserted by the Plaintiffs, there is no issue of material facts requiring trial. The court therefore grants the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in the sum of $9531.18 plus court costs of 815.00 as requested by the Plaintiffs, total judgment of $10,346.18. shall issue forthwith.

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Mary Salmeron, at (831) 636-4057 x128 or msalmeron@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns