American Express National Bank vs Roseanne Villapania

Case Number

24CV01317

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

American Express National Bank vs. Roseanne Villapania   

Case No. 24CV01317

           

Hearing Date: September 8, 2025                                                      

HEARING:              Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative Summary Adjudication

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff American Express National Bank: Janet L. Brown, Douglas S. Wallace, Eric A. Whitaker, Zwicker & Associates, P.C.

                             For Defendant Roseanne Villapania: Julia M. Young, Law Offices of Julia M. Young

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff shall submit a corrected proposed judgment that conforms to the court’s ruling herein, and shall serve notice of this ruling on defendant.

Background:

Plaintiff American Express National Bank (American Express) filed its complaint in this matter on March 7, 2024, alleging one cause of action against defendant Roseanne Villapania for common counts based on an open book account and an account stated in writing. The complaint alleges amounts due under a credit account issued by American Express to defendant, for purchases or cash advances made by defendant or persons with defendant’s permission. (Compl., ¶¶ CC-1(a), (b)(3) & (6) & Exh. A.) American Express alleges that the amount due from and unpaid by defendant totals $10,805.15. (Id. at ¶¶ CC-1(b)(3) & CC-4.)

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on April 8, 2024, generally denying its allegations and asserting two affirmative defenses.

On March 12, 2025, American Express filed a motion for summary judgment against defendant, or in the alternative for summary adjudication. In support of that motion, American Express submits separate statement setting forth the following facts which American Express contends are undisputed:

On May 24, 2012, defendant applied to American Express for a credit card account and entered into a written credit card account agreement with American Express for account number ending in 2008 (the Account). (Sep. Stmt., ¶¶ 1, 10 & evidence cited therein.) Defendant also agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in a Cardmember Agreement when defendant applied for, received, or used the Account. (Id. at¶¶ 2, 11 & evidence cited therein.) The Cardmember Agreement provides that use of the credit card constitutes acceptance of that agreement. (Ibid.)

After receiving the credit card, purchases were made by the use of the Account and the charging of various goods, services and cash advances. (Sep. Stmt., ¶¶ 3, 12 & evidence cited therein.) American Express complied with its obligations under the Cardmember Agreement by paying vendors for all charges that were made on the Account. (Ibid.) The principal balance of $10,805.15 prayed for in the complaint results from defendant’s use of the Account. (Ibid.)

Payments and charges are reflected on a computerized credit card record regularly kept and maintained by American Express in connection with the Account. (Sep. Stmt., ¶¶ 4, 13 & evidence cited therein.) These records were provided on a monthly basis to defendant in the form of billing statements reflecting all debits and credits to the account. (Ibid.) There is no record of defendant asserting a valid and unresolved objection to the balance shown as due and owing on the monthly billing statements provided to defendant. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 14 & evidence cited therein.)

Before November 13, 2023, defendant defaulted in making payments due under the terms of the Cardmember Agreement. (Sep. Stmt., ¶¶ 6, 15 & evidence cited therein.) American Express accelerated the Account balance so that the entire unpaid balance became immediately due and payable. (Ibid.) The last payment applied to the Account, or transaction made by defendant, was on September 7, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 16 & evidence cited therein.) Defendant owes to American Express the principal amount of $10,805.15 plus court costs. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 17 & evidence cited therein.)

Defendant’s affirmative defenses, if any, fail to raise any triable issues of fact material to this action and therefore do not preclude granting of summary judgment. (Sep. Stmt., ¶¶ 9, 18 & evidence cited therein.)

Defendant has not filed any opposition to the motion of American Express.

Analysis:

A motion for summary judgment “shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (c).) “From commencement to conclusion, the moving party bears the burden of persuasion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 845, 850 (Aguilar).) A plaintiff meets its burden of persuasion by establishing “through such evidence of a ‘requisite degree of belief[]’ ” that each element of the cause of action has been proved, and that as a result, there is no defense to the cause of action. (Id. at p. 853, citation omitted; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

The moving party also bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing, sufficient to support that party’s position, of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 851-852.) If the moving party carries its burden of production, this “causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Id. at p. 850.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Ibid.)

Motions for summary adjudication “ ‘proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.’ [Citation.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2); see also Oroville Hospital v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 382, 399.)

Noted above, American Express alleges in the complaint a cause of action for an account stated. “An account stated is an agreement, based on prior transactions between the parties, that the items of an account are true and that the balance struck is due and owing.” (Maggio, Inc. v. Neal (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 745, 752.) “The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the parties establishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, express or implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, express or implied, to pay the amount due.” (Zinn v. Fred R. Bright Co. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 597, 600 (Zinn).)

Though both parties must assent to an account stated, “the assent of the party sought to be charged may be implied from [that party’s] conduct.” (Hansen v. Fresno Jersey Farm Dairy Co. (1934) 220 Cal. 402, 408.) Further, if a statement is provided to a debtor, and “the debtor fails to object to the statement within a reasonable time, the law implies his agreement that the account is correct as rendered.” (Zinn, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 600; see also Gardner v. Watson (1915) 170 Cal. 570, 574, citation omitted [when an account stated is “assented to, either expressly or impliedly, it becomes a new contract”].) “A number of jurisdictions have applied [the] principle [of assent] in the context of credit card debt, concluding that where a debtor receives and does not object to a credit card statement, an agreement to the amount due can be inferred.” (Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 968.)

The evidence submitted by American Express in support of the motion and described above, demonstrates that the Account, the credit transactions between defendant and American Express, and the Cardmember Agreement, established a relationship of debtor and creditor as between the parties. The evidence also demonstrates that defendant did not object to the monthly statements provided by American Express as described above, which the present record reflects set forth the balance due and owing under the Account and pursuant to the Cardmember Agreement.

For all reasons discussed above, the available evidence and information is sufficient to show the existence of an account stated between American Express and defendant, and that defendant agreed to and accepted the amount due as reflected in that account. Though American Express also alleges a cause of action on an open book account, to the extent the records of American Express demonstrate the existence of a book account, that account “merged into and was superseded by the account stated.” (Zinn, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 604.) Therefore, it is unnecessary for the court to address American Express’ motion for summary adjudication of its claim on a purported open book account. (Ibid.)

The undisputed evidence appearing in the separate statement of American Express is also sufficient to show that defendant does not have a defense to the causes of action alleged in the complaint.

As American Express has met its burden to establish each element of an account stated and to show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the causes of action alleged in the complaint, the burden shifts to defendant to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. As defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion, it appears to the court that the evidence and information described above is not in conflict or dispute and that there exist no triable issues of material fact. (Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings, LLC v. Avery (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 218, 226-227.)

For all reasons further discussed above, American Express has met its burden to prove each element of its causes of action and to show that there exist no triable issues as to any material fact such that American Express is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the court will therefore grant the motion.

Though the court has reviewed the proposed order lodged by American Express and intends to sign it, the proposed judgment includes court costs reflected in a purported memorandum of costs. The court has no record showing that American Express filed a memorandum of costs in this action. For this reason, the court will require American Express to submit a corrected proposed judgment that conforms to the court’s ruling herein.

American Express shall also serve notice of this ruling on defendant.