Tentative Ruling: Wells Fargo Bank NA vs Ana K Jacobo
Case Number
24CV06143
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Tue, 10/27/2026 - 08:30
Nature of Proceedings
Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
Tentative Ruling
On March 25, 2025, plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (plaintiff), filed a verified limited civil complaint for breach of contract against defendant Ana K. Jacobo (defendant), requesting damages of $5,498.6. Defendant opened a credit-card account on May 20, 2018, and ultimately defaulted. Exhibit 1 attached to the complaint is a document entitled “Consumer Credit Card Customer Agreement and Disclosure Statement Visa,” which reflects the agreement between the parties. Defendant filed an answer on August 6, 2025, in which she admitted all statements of the complaint except the follows: “The exact amount of the alleged debt, defendant does not have any way to calculate the interest,[c], cost, fee and penalties.” The answer also reads as follows: “Defendant had signed with a credit solution company to help negotiate on her behalf with the debt problem. I am currently still with them and making payments. I’m having financial difficulties and would request to go to mediation and try to reach a payment plan I can afford. I have other creditors and I’m trying to resolve my debt problems.”
On July 21, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, along with a request for judicial notice (with exhibits attached to the declaration of attorney Pearse Early) and a “Memorandum of Costs[],” noting in the papers that it submits on the briefing and will not make an appearance (as permitted per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1340(c)). Plaintiff asks the court to take judicial notice of 1) defendant’s answer, in which no defenses are raised; 2) propounded discovery, consisting of 11 Requests for Admission, which were served upon defendant, and when defendant failed to reply,[1] were admitted as true by the court in a signed order on April 7, 2026. Plaintiff has also submitted two declarations from attorney Pearse Early, one indicating compliance with all meet and confer requirements, as well an attorney declaration justifying attorney’s fees. In plaintiff’s “Memorandum of Costs” plaintiff asks for total costs of $1225, which consists of the following: 1) $345 for filing and motion fees; 2) $80 for service of process; and 3) $800 for attorney’s fees,[2] supported by an “Attorney Fee Declaration” from Pearse Early, in which counsel references this court’s default schedule, and observes the amount requested is less than that authorized for a default judgment. As noted, plaintiff’s counsel indicates that they will not appear at the hearing today, submitting on the moving papers as is permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1304(c).
A statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings (Code Civ. Proc., § 438) is an appropriate means of obtaining an adjudication of the rights of the parties when breach of contract is pleaded. A motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by plaintiff, as here, is the functional equivalent of a demurrer to an answer. (Engine Manufacturers Assn. v. State Air Resources Bd. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1034.) The motion should be denied if the pleadings (the complaint and answer) raise a material issue or set up an affirmative matter constituting a defense. This is so because the determination “of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733; see People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 486, 499; accord, Allstate v. Kim W. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 326, 220-331.)
The court should grant plaintiff’s request to take judicial notice of the answer, the motion to deem the admissions as true, and the court’s April 7, 2026 order deeming the admissions as true. As to the requests for admission, the court can rely on this evidence in determining the merits of the motion, as their import cannot reasonably be disputed. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605 [the court can take judicial notice of records such as requests for admission, when considering a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings where the evidence contains statements of defendant which are inconsistent with the allegation in the answer]; see also Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 201, 218, fn. 11 [a court may take judicial notice of a party’s admissions in cases where the admission cannot reasonably be controverted, such as requests for admission].)
The court finds the motion was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(e).) It also finds the motion was properly served on defendant (as evidenced by the two proofs of service in the record). Finally, it finds that plaintiff has satisfied its meet and confer obligations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)).
On the merits, plaintiff has adequately pleaded a breach of contract cause of action. (D'Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 800 [establishing a breach of contract claim requires a showing of “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff”].) Plaintiff claims the contract was in writing, has attached a copy of it to the complaint, alleges it has performed all obligations thereunder, asserted defendant breached the agreement, and indicated damages were incurred. Indeed, in the Requests for Admission deemed admitted as true, defendant admitted she opened an account governed under the contact attached to the complaint, never objected to the amount owned, and admitted she owed $5,498.81. Defendant, despite service, has not filed opposition. All elements of a breach of contract have been established based on the judicially noticed documents, and no defenses were articulated in the answer or can now be advanced given the requests for admission were deemed admitted as true. (See, e.g., Va. G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852.) Accordingly, the court grants motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend, and award plaintiff damages of $5,498.81.
As for costs, while they are authorized via a post-judgment motion through California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, plaintiff has submitted a “Memorandum of Costs” (which is prima facie evidence justifying the costs). The court acknowledges that courts routinely award costs without strict compliance of the Rules of Court if there is the functional equivalent of a motion under this rule, and there is. The court should award costs of $345 for filing and motion fees, and $80 for service of process fees, for a total of $424, as they appear reasonable.
This leaves the request for attorney’s fees of $800. Counsel does not provide any basis for a lodestar analysis, relying instead (exclusively) in the attorney declaration on our default schedule (without citing to our local rule of court). The latter is located at Santa Brabara County Superior Court Local Rule 707, which provides in relevant part that when the debt is between $5,000.01 to $10,000, plaintiff is entitled to fees of $1,050 plus 15% of the excess over $5,000. While the court generally is not enamored with the use of the default scheme outside that context, the court is also not persuaded that legal punctiliousness is appropriate, given the obvious benefits of a truncated and streamlined inquiry. $800 is substantially less than that authorized by our default schedule. Defendant in RFA 8 (deemed admitted as the true – see fn. 1, ante) expressly admitted that the contract between the parties contained a provision entitling plaintiff as prevailing party to attorney fees. This action was filed on July 21, 2026; defendant has filed discovery motions and CMC statements, and $800 seems reasonable under these circumstances. The court will therefore grant the request for attorney’s fees of $800.
In summary, plaintiff will not appear at the hearing under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1340(c), and defendant has not filed opposition (and likely will not appear). The court grants plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of all documents. It grants plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, awarding plaintiff $5,498.81, plus costs and fees for a total judgment of $6,723.81. The court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment filed under separate cover on July 21, 2026. The court directs the clerk to enter judgment and provide a notice of entry of judgment to all parties. The court will vacate the CMC as a result.
[1] The 11 RFAs are as follows:1) admit that defendant had an account with plaintiff, ending in number 5179 (the account at issue in the complaint); 2) admit that monthly account statements were sent to defendant requesting minimum payments; 3) admit that defendant never notified plaintiff of a dispute involving the balance of any account statement; 4) admit that as of March 25, 2025, there was a balance owing of at least $5,498.81 on the account; 5) admit that since March 25, 2025 defendant has not paid the propounding party at least $5,498.81 or any other amount on the account; 6) admit that defendant owes the propounding party at least $5,498.81 on the account exclusive of any amounts incurred after March 25, 2025; 7) admit the Consumer Credit Card Customer Agreement and Disclosure Statement Visa, applicable to this account in this action, was attached to the complaint as Exhibit A; 8) admit that Exhibit A contains a provision entitling the prevailing party to attorney fees; 9) admit that defendant does not have a credit defense (for purposes of these requests, credit defense refers to any debt cancellation agreement between you and plaintiff wherein plaintiff has agreed to cancel any portion of a debt you owe on your account); 10) admit that “if you have Credit Defense, defendant does not qualify for its benefits; and 11) admit that affirmative defenses you have asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.
[2] The “Memorandum of Costs” was submitted on mandatory Judicial Council form MC-010, which provides in relevant part for attorney’s fees as follows: “. . . (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without the necessity of a court determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required).”