Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union v. Ashley Nelson

Case Number

24CV02687

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union: Laura M. D’Anna, Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C.                                   

For Defendant Ashley Nelson: Self-Represented.

                                  

RULING

For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $36,041.74.

Background

This action commenced on May 15, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union (“plaintiff”) against defendant Ashley Nelson (“defendant”) for Breach of Written Contract.

The complaint alleges that defendant entered into a loan agreement and promissory note, with Cross River Bank. (Compl., ¶ 1 & Exhs. A, B.)

Defendant was registered as a borrower member of the Upgrade, Inc. platform (“Upgrade”). (Compl., ¶ 2.) The borrower agreement advises defendant that the loan will be serviced by Upgrade’s national online consumer loan marketplace platform. (Compl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant agreed to Upgrade being the servicer of the loan and agreed to comply with Upgrade’s terms of use. (Compl., ¶ 6 & Exh. C.) Loans through the Upgrade platform are funded by Cross River Bank and are subsequently assigned to participating investors, while Upgrade continues to service the loans after they are assigned. (Compl., ¶ 7.)

The promissory note and the borrow agreement were purchased by Upgrade and then sold and assigned to plaintiff, who is the current holder of the promissory note for the loan. (Compl., ¶ 10.)

Defendant has defaulted on the loan and there remains due and owing the principal sum of $35,258.74. (Compl., ¶¶ 20-22.) Pursuant to the loan documents, defendant has also agreed to pay attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by plaintiff in enforcing its rights. (Compl., ¶ 26.)

Defendant answered the complaint on July 1, 2024. By way of the answer, defendant does not claim that any of the allegations of the complaint are false. Rather, she denies each allegation of the complaint on the basis that she has no information or belief that the statements are true. (Answer, ¶ 3(b)(2).) She also asserts nine affirmative defenses.

On December 4, 2024, following hearing, the court entered an order deeming plaintiff’s requests for admission and genuineness of documents, set one, admitted.

Plaintiff now moves for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was timely served on defendant.

Defendant has filed no opposition or other responsive document to the motion.

Analysis

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made on the grounds that: “If the moving party is a plaintiff, that 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).)

“Like a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings attacks defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that may be judicially noticed.” (Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1174.)

Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of its requests for admissions propounded on plaintiff, as well as the court’s December 9, 2024, Order deeming the requests admitted.

With certain exceptions inapplicable here, “a court may take judicial notice of a party’s admissions or concessions in cases where the admission ‘ “cannot reasonably be controverted,” ’ such as in answers to interrogatories or requests for admission, or in affidavits and declarations filed on the party’s behalf.” (Tucker v Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 201, 218, fn. 11; see also Del. E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605 [“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], only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court”].)

The court will take judicial notice of the documents pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 453.

As stated above, plaintiff’s sole cause of action against defendant is breach of contract.

The essential elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are “(1) the contract; (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance; (3) the defendant’s breach; and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” (Richman v Hartley (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186.)

“Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action, unless the court has permitted withdrawal or amendment of that admission under Section 2033.300.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410.)

By way of the deemed admissions, it is established that: (1) defendant entered into a loan contract with plaintiff’s predecessor in interest (RFA Nos. 1-4, 13); (2) plaintiff’s predecessor in interest performed its obligations under the contract (RFA Nos. 5, 6, 11, 13); (3) defendant breached the loan contract (RFA Nos. 10, 12, 13); (4) that plaintiff sustained financial damages as a result of the breach (RFA Nos. 12, 13); and (5) plaintiff now owns the subject loan (RFA Nos. 8, 13).

Because the request for admissions have been deemed admitted, the answer itself contains no defense to the allegations contained in the complaint. By filing no opposition, defendant provides no facts that constitute a defense to the action and, by implication, concedes that plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings has merit.

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted. As there is no probability that defendant would be able to amend her answer to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, leave to amend will not be granted.

Pursuant to the loan documents, Judgment will be ordered in the amount of $35,258.74 loan principal and $783.00 in costs for a total judgment of $36,041.74.