Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
9:00 24CV449202 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 2 v. Judgment on the Pleadings against John S. Campbell Defendant John S. Campbell
As the moving party has notified the Court that it withdraws this motion, this motion is hereby OFF CALENDAR.
SO ORDERED.
9:00 25CV459110 Capital One, N.A. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 3 v. Judgment on the Pleadings against Sarahi Gomez Defendant Sarahi Gomez
See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 23CV422452 Ricardo Enrique-Daniel, et al. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 4 v. Compel Defendant to provide Code- Estate of Patricia Basquez, et al. Compliant Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Sanctions
See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 23CV422452 Ricardo Enrique-Daniel, et al. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 5 v. Compel Defendant to provide Code- Estate of Patricia Basquez, et al. Compliant Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Sanctions
See Line 5 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
Line 3 Case Name: Capital One, N.A. v. Sarahi Gomez
Case No.: 25CV459110 Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) moves under Code of Civil Procedure Section 438 for entry of Judgment on the Pleadings per the Complaint in the amount set forth in the Complaint plus costs in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Sarahi Gomez (“Defendant”) on the ground that the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute any defense. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:23-28 (filed: March 2, 2026).
The Motion came on for hearing on June 3, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant for damages in the amount of $4,161.56. Complaint at ¶¶ 8- 10 (filed Feb. 18, 2025). Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds that it does state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract by Plaintiff against Defendant.
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?”
Defendant filed an Answer on March 21, 2025, which does not deny any allegation or claim in the Complaint. Answer (filed March 31, 2025). Having reviewed the Answer, the Court finds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute any defense to the Complaint.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 438(a) authorizes a Plaintiff to bring this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings where, as here, “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.” C.C.P. § 438(a).
Here, as the Court has found that (1) the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant for damages in the amount of $4,161.56, and (2) Defendant’s Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute any defense to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion under Section 438(a) is GRANTED.
More specifically, as the Court reads Defendant’s Answer to admit that she owes the debt claimed by the Complaint, there is no reasonable possibility that this defective pleading (that fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any defense) could be cured by amendment. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Defendant does not argue otherwise. Indeed, Defendant has not opposed the Motion at all, which the Court views as Defendant conceding the Motion. D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.; see also Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).)
Given this Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion without leave to amend, Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment now in the amount of damages set forth in the Complaint of $4,161.56, plus Plaintiff’s costs incurred for bringing this Motion (as set forth in the accompanying memorandum of costs) in the amount of $358.61 (which equals the $295.00 filing fee plus a $73.61 service of process fee). Hence, Judgment is entered now in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for the total amount of $4,520.17 (which equals $4,161.56 in damages plus $358.61 in costs).
Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the pleadings in the amount of $4,161.56 set forth in the Complaint plus costs in the amount of $358.61 for a total amount of $4,520.17 in favor of Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. and against Defendant Sarahi Gomez is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 3, 2026 Vincent I. Parrett Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Judgment
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the pleadings, for damages of $4,161.56 plus costs of $358.61 for a total sum of $4,520.17 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, came regularly for a hearing by the Court on June 3, 2026, on notice duly given. After reviewing all the papers and giving counsel for all parties the opportunity to be heard, the Court GRANTS THE MOTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. have and recover now from Defendant Sarahi Gomez a Total Judgment in the amount of $4,520.17, which equals damages of $4,161.56 plus costs of $358.61.
Date: June 3, 2026 Vincent I. Parrett Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
16