WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL

25CV015333: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV015333: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, without leave to amend.

This is a consumer collection action in which Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. The request for judicial notice shows that Plaintiff’s motion to have its request for admissions to Defendant Sabrina Lee was granted on March 3, 2026. Additionally, the Court notes that as indicated by the Register of Actions, at no time since its order of March 3, 2026, has the Court made a finding “that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion [seeking deemed admissions], a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 20233.280(c) [brackets added].)

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “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.” (CCP § 438(c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the motion shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (CCP § 438 (d).). The Court properly takes judicial notice of the fact that defendant has admitted the allegations of the Complaint.

Indeed, the Court will take judicial notice of records, such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer [or motion for judgment on the pleadings] (Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 C. 481, 482; Morris v. Harbor Boat Bldg. Co. (1952) 112 C.A.2d

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV015333: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16D

882, 886; Columbia Cas. Co. v. Northwestern. Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 C.A.3d 457, 468), Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604- 605.)

Thus, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may extend consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice; in doing so, the Court performs essentially the same task as ruling on a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 C.4th 138, 146.) Additionally, the Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.) “A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendant's pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (MacIsaac v.

Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.)

Here, the complaint properly alleges the requisite allegations for breach of contract. Further as seen from the request for judicial notice, Plaintiff’s requests for admission have been deemed admitted. Specifically, Defendant admitted Plaintiff issued her a credit card, that she was to repay the principal amount plus finance charges, that she never disputed the accuracy of the charges, that she currently owes $8,288.49, and that she has no defense to the complaint. While Defendant filed an answer raising certain affirmative defenses, the later admissions take precedence over the contrary allegations in the answer. (Del E.

Webb Corp., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at 604-605 ['The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court'].) '[A] deemed admitted order establishes. . . that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v.

Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983; Weil & Brown, Cal. Civil Pro. Before Trial (Rutter Guide, 2015 Update) § 8:1375.1.)

No opposition was filed to this motion. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Based upon these admissions, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in favor of moving party plaintiff, without leave to amend.

The Court declines to sign the proposed order and proposed judgment as they include an award of costs. Plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a new proposed order and proposed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV015333: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16D

judgment for the Court’s signature pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312. Plaintiff may seek its costs pursuant to CRC rule 3.1700 once judgment is entered.