DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CU25-05569, CL24-00657·solano·Civil·Debt Collection
CONTINUED

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs. ERIK CARTER

Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment

Hearing date
May 15, 2026
Department
Seven
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
May 29, 2026

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffWELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
DefendantERIK CARTER

Ruling

DEPARTMENT SEVEN JUDGE TIM P. KAM 707-207-7307 TENTATIVE RULINGS SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2026

The parties may appear via Zoom with the exception of trials, trial management conferences, order for examinations and mandatory settlement conferences. The information for the Zoom meeting is set forth below.

The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court unless a party desiring to be heard contacts the judicial assistant of the department hearing the matter by 4:30 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises that such party has notified the other side of its intention to request a hearing. A party requesting a hearing must notify all parties of the request to be heard by 4:30 p.m.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs. ERIK CARTER Case No. CU25-05569, CL24-00657

Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING

On the Court’s own motion, the hearing is continued to May 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department Seven.

ANEISHA GREEN vs. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM Case No. CU25-06166

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Response to Form Interrogatory 15.1

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff ANEISHA GREEN moves to compel Defendant WILSHIRE LAW FIRM to further respond to Form Interrogatory 15.1, requesting that Defendant state all facts supporting its general denial of and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s complaint and identify all witnesses and documents with information supporting those facts.

The Court notes that Defendant adequately states its facts supporting its general denial and affirmative defenses in its January 30, 2026 supplemental response. However, Defendant fails to respond to the subparts of Form Interrogatory 15.1 requiring it to identify persons and documents that support its facts. Defendant must further respond

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share