Tentative Ruling: Two Jinn Inc vs Bernardino Fernandez et al
Case Number
25CV02990
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 10/28/2026 - 10:30
Nature of Proceedings
Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
Tentative Ruling
Tentative Ruling:
The request for judicial notice of the order deeming matters admitted is granted. The motion is granted. The court will sign the proposed judgment for 9,295.00, plus attorney fees in the sum of $1,694.25 and costs in the sum of 445.00 as submitted by plaintiff.
The parties are instructed to appear at the hearing for oral argument. Appearance by Zoom Videoconference is optional and does not require the filing of Judicial Council form RA-010, Notice of Remote Appearance. (See Remote Appearance (Zoom) Information | Superior Court of California | County of Santa Barbara.)
Background:
On May 13, 2025, plaintiffs filed a complaint for breach of contract against Gloria Fernandez Lopez, Bernadino Fernandez, Estela Angelica Banner, and Maria Lopez Juarez alleging plaintiff arranged for the issuance of a bail bond to Gloria Fernandez Lopez pursuant to a contract with defendants in which they agreed to pay the cost of the bond and any renewal or increase thereof, the actual expenses incurred with execution or renewal of the bond, and to reimburse plaintiff for breach of the bond. Plaintiffs allege defendants breached that contract and plaintiffs have sustained damage in the amount of $9,295.00.
Defendant Estela Banner generally denied the allegations in an answer filed on July 2, 2025, and asserted an affirmative defense as follows: “Plaintiff agent assured me they [ ] would not take us into court. I relied on his assurance when I signed.” Default was entered against defendant Bernadino Fernandez on August 13, 2025. On that same date, Gloria Fernandez Lopez and Maria Lopez Juarez were dismissed.
On May 6, 2026, the court entered an order deeming facts admitted against Estela Banner: 1) she signed the Surety Bail Bond Indemnity Agreement; 2) she is obligated to pay to plaintiffs all costs and expenses incurred by plaintiff in connection with Bail Bond No. XXXX-XXX6979 issued by Seaview Insurance Company to or for the benefit of GLORIA FERNANDEZ LOPEZ; plaintiff issued him a credit card; 3) she currently owed a principal balance of $ $9,295.00 that is past due, owing, and unpaid; 4) that plaintiffs made a demand on her to pay the amount; 5) that she has not paid any part of the amount; 6) that there is no valid defense to the complaint.
Plaintiffs now file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant was timely served with the motion by mail and has not filed opposition, which would be untimely as of this writing. Plaintiffs also ask the court to take judicial notice of the May 6, 2026, order deeming matters admitted.
Analysis:
A motion for judgment on the pleadings can be made by plaintiff on the ground that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the “answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1).) The motion must be based on the face of the challenged pleading or be based on facts the court may judicially notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d); Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 CA5th 734, 758-759.) Here, plaintiff asserts that (1) the operative complaint adequately pleads a breach of contract cause of action; and (2) based on matters judicially noticed (i.e., defendant’s deemed admissions), “defendant does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.”
The court grants the request and takes judicial notice of the admissions as evidenced in the court’s discovery order. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605.) With this judicially noticed evidence, the court agrees that defendant has stated a cause of action for breach of contract in the operative pleading, as all material allegations have been admitted.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings as filed by plaintiff “must be denied if the defendant's pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (MacIsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812–813.) Here, the admissions foreclose any possibility of that defendant’s only asserted defense remains viable. She was deemed to admit that Surety Bail Bond Indemnity Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties and that there are no oral agreements. Plaintiff has thus admitted there is no valid defense to the complaint.
Procedurally, plaintiff’s motion is timely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(e).) Notice was given, and plaintiff has satisfied its meet and confer obligations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a); see Melendrez Del. Re Meet and Confer Attempts filed on 7/28/26.) The proposed judgment is for 9,295.00, plus attorney fees in the sum of $1,694.25 and costs in the sum of 445.00.
There is currently a split of authority about whether plaintiff must file a post-judgment motion for costs per California Rules of Court, rules 3.1700 and 3.1702. Earlier courts have concluded that including a request for such an order in the motion for judgment satisfies the requirement of a noticed motion, nullifying the need for a separate, post-judgment motion. (Miller v. Provost (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1703, 1709-1710; see Wagner v. Shapona (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 451, 463-464, overruled on another ground in Neff v. Ernest (1957) 48 Cal.2d 628, 634; but see, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Loo (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1797-1798 [it is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees (and by logic costs] are to be awarded only upon noticed motion required except where parties stipulate otherwise or judgment is entered by default].) Because the costs and fees were requested as part of this motion, supported by the Memorandum of Costs, and served on the proposed defendant, allowing her an opportunity to oppose the request, the court finds that it is reasonable to follow Miller v. Provost and award plaintiff costs of $445, which appear reasonable, and attorney fees in the amount of $1,694.25, which is also reasonable. (See Local Rule 707.)
The court will sign the proposed judgment as submitted by plaintiff.