Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
9:00 25CV456740 Clark J. Freitag, Inc. Order on Cross-Defendant’s 1 v. Demurrer to Cross-Complainant’s Anderson-Graves, LLC, et al. First Amended Cross-Complaint
See Line 1 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 25CV460129 Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 2 of Citibank N.A. Judgment on the Pleadings in favor v. of Plaintiff Daljeet Kaur, et al.
See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 25CV468818 Joel Weissbart Order on Defendant’s Demurrer 3 v. to the Complaint General Motors, LLC, et al.
See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 24CV449054 Kellie Karen Stafford Order on Defendant’s Motion to 4 v. Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition Volkswagen Group of America and for Sanctions Inc., et al.
See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
Line 2 Case Name: Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank N.A. v. Daljeet Kaur, et al.
Case No.: 25CV460129 Plaintiff Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as assignee of Citibank N.A., (“Plaintiff”) moves for Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of Plaintiff on the grounds that the Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant Daljeet Kaur (“Defendant”) and the Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:3-8 (filed: Oct. 15, 2025).
The Motion came on for hearing on June 10, 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 March 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with a single cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant for damages in the amount of $3,859.43. Complaint at ¶¶ 5-17 (filed March 3, 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.
Defendant filed an Answer on March 7, 2025, which does not deny any allegation or claim in the Complaint. Answer (filed March 7, 2025). Having reviewed the Answer, the Court finds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute any defense to the Complaint.
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?”
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 $3,859.43, 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 Defendant owes the credit-card debt claimed by the Complaint, there is no reasonable possibility that this deficient Answer (which 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 $3,859.43, plus Plaintiff’s costs incurred for bringing this Motion (as set forth in the accompanying Declaration of attorney Jomari Lucero at ¶10, filed Oct. 15, 2025) in the amount of $314.55 (which equals the $181.00, service of process fee of $73.55, and Motion fee in the amount of $60.00). Hence, Judgment is entered now in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for the total amount of $4,173.98 (which equals $3,859.43 in damages plus $314.55 in costs).
Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the pleadings for damages in the amount of $3,859.43 as set forth in the Complaint plus costs in the amount of $314.55 for a total amount of $4,173.98 in favor of Plaintiff Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank N.A., and against Defendant Daljeet Kaur, is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 10, 2026 Vincent I. Parrett Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Judgment
IT IS SO ORDERED: This Court, having Ordered Judgment on the Pleadings and having good cause, renders Judgment as follows:
1. That Judgment be entered now against Defendant Daljeet Kaur, an individual, and for Plaintiff Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank N.A.; and
2. Plaintiff Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank N.A., shall recover from Defendant Daljeet Kaur, as damages, the principal balance of $3,859.43, plus reimbursable costs in the amount of $314.55, for a Total Judgment of $4,173.98.
Date: June 3, 2026 Vincent I. Parrett Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
14