American Express National Bank v. Villegas

9. Navy Federal Credit Union v. Corona, Case No. CIVSB2511311 Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 6/11/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would CONTINUE to allow movant to file a supplemental declaration showing compliance with the meet-and-confer requirement. Importantly, before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings (JOP), the moving party “shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.) Here, the declaration submitted in support fails to assert compliance with the statue. (See Hassan Decl.) The movant will file a supplemental declaration at least ten court days prior to the next hearing. *** *** ***

10. Wagner v. Elias & Co. Staffing, et al, Case No. CIVSB2331812 Def. Yusen’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 6/11/12, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would GRANT this unopposed motion. Here, the movant has set forth evidence of a good faith, arms-length mediation and a settlement pursuant to a mediator’s proposal. (See e.g., Hollander Decl.; Goodman Decl. Payab Decl.) The Court finds sufficient basis to approve the good faith settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 877.6.) No opposition or argument has been submitted to the contrary. *** *** ***

11. American Express National Bank v. Villegas, Case No. CIVSB2400510 Plaintiff’s Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant’s Default Under Settlement 6/11/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would GRANT this unopposed motion. If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court, to settle the case, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6; Skulnick v. Roberts Exp., Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889, review denied.) Here, Plaintiff and Defendant settled the case by entering into a written settlement agreement wherein the parties agreed that no judgment would be entered against Defendant so long as Defendant paid an agreed settlement amount per monthly installments. (Penuela Decl., ¶4 &

Exh 1.) However, Defendant has failed to pay that agreed-upon amount, despite repeated attempts by Plaintiff to contact. (Id., ¶¶6-7 & 10.)

*** *** ***

12. Peimbert v. Perez, et al, Case No. CIVSB2412010 Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer 6/11/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

This matter was set on shortened time, to allow further briefing, following an ex parte application brought on April 22, 2026 The Court is inclined to DENY. The Court will hear argument on whether further continuance is advisable. Here, the initial matter was brought as an ex parte application for leave to file an amended answer on April 22, 2026. The supporting declaration did not include a proposed amended answer at that time. (See Lopez Decl., filed April 21, 2026.) The matter was continued to allow the parties to continue to meet and confer and also for further briefing.

Importantly, the opposition to the ex parte cited failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. That Rule requires specification of the provisions that are proposed to be added, deleted, or amended. Further, a copy of the proposed amended answer was required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Despite these shortcomings, no further briefing has been submitted since the initial ex parte hearing on April 22, 2026. *** *** ***

3