PLAINTIFF WELLS FARGO BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP §664.6
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 2, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 25CV01700
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA v. RATNAGOPAL
PLAINTIFF WELLS FARGO BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CCP §664.6
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and the parties’ stipulation (Lopez Declaration, Exhibit 1), judgment in the sum of $8,852.66 will be entered in favor of plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, NA and against defendant Jeyachandran Ratnagopal. The Court will sign both proposed orders submitted by plaintiff’s counsel.
Defendant filed several “supplemental oppositions” on May 29, 2026, requesting relief. Those oppositions were filed 10 days late. He also states he filed an initial opposition on April 24, 2026. There is no record of that pleading in the court file in this action, but there is an opposition to an upcoming motion for summary judgment in a different action between the parties (no. 25CV03072).
Based on the pleadings in this case, the stipulation entered between the parties, and the evidence here that defendant failed to pay the stipulated debt, the Court declines to consider defendant’s untimely opposition and grants the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 13.1300
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?”