American Express National Bank v. Vaca CA1/2

Filed 4/30/24 American Express National Bank v. Vaca CA1/2 Received for posting on 5/14/24 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168165

v. (Alameda County EDWARD VACA, Super. Ct. No. 22CV005110) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This appeal arises out of a credit card debt collection action. Representing himself, defendant Edward Vaca (Vaca) challenges a judgment entered after the trial court granted plaintiff American Express National Bank’s (American Express) motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal as untimely. On January 10, 2022, American Express filed a complaint against Vaca for $56,315.23 in unpaid credit card debt. Vaca filed an answer. On August 12, American Express filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. The motion was accompanied

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion; in doing so, we provide

an abbreviated factual recitation. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; see People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)

1

by a memorandum of points and authorities, a separate statement of undisputed material facts, a declaration of American Express’s custodian of records, and exhibits attached to the declaration. The motion was set for hearing on December 15. Prior to that date, Vaca failed to file an opposition to the motion and the trial court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion. At the hearing on December 15, 2022, Vaca contested the tentative ruling and indicated he opposed the motion. The trial court continued the hearing to February 2, 2023 and ordered Vaca to file a declaration explaining why he failed to file a timely opposition. Vaca did not file such a declaration. Instead, on January 17, 2023, he filed an opposition to American Express’s summary judgment motion and a response to its separate statement. Vaca did not submit any evidence in support of his opposition. After American Express filed a reply, the trial court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion for summary judgment. On February 2, the motion came on for hearing, but neither party appeared or contested the tentative ruling. The trial court adopted the tentative ruling as its final order. On February 6, a judgment awarding American Express $57,318.23 was filed. On February 8, the trial court clerk mailed the parties a file- stamped copy of the judgment. On February 10, Vaca filed a motion for a new trial, which American Express opposed. On March 28, after a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. Also on March 28, the trial court issued an “order to show cause [(OSC)] why the judgment issued in this case on February 6, 2023 should not