Preview
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 05:09 PM INDEX NO. EF003713-2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE ____________________________________________ Plaintiff designates ORANGE as County MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC the place of trial; the defendant resides in ORANGE County PLAINTIFF, INDEX NUMBER: -AGAINST. PURCHASE DATE: S&S FILE NO. C606465, C606475 MARIBEL GARRIS DEFENDANT. SUMMONS ____________________________________________ Plaintiffs address: 350 CAMINO DE LA REINA, STE 100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 The Basis of the Venue is Defendant's Residence CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTION TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the plaintiffs attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the state of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint, together with the costs of this action. Dated: June 08, 2023 Selip & Stylianou, LLP Attorneys for plaintiff P.O. Box 9004, 199 Crossways Park Dr., Woodbury, NY 11797-9004 (516) 364-6006 ext. 8991; (866) 848-8975 ext. 8991; TTY/TRS: (516) 422-8500 Refer to S&S File No. C606465, C606475 Defendant to be served: MARIBEL GARRIS, 310 LAKESIDE RD, NEWBURGH, NY 12550 This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. YOURS, ETC. Selip & S ianou, L By: MITCHER SEUP SQ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111Filed in Orange County 06/08/2023 05:09:20 PM $0.00 1 of Bk: 5153 5 Pg: 497 Index: # EF003713-2023 Clerk: EBRFILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 05:09 PM INDEX NO. EF003713-2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE ............................................................................................. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC PLAINTIFF, INDEX NUMBER: -AGAINST- S&S FILE NO. C606475 C606465, MARIBEL GARRIS COMPLAINT DEFENDANT. ____________-__ _--__-___--__-___--__-_____________ Plaintiff, by its attorneys, complaining of the Defendant(s), respectfully alleges that: 1. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation licensed to transact business in New York. 2. Upon information and belief, the Defendant(s) resides or has an office in the venue in which this action is brought, or the Defendant(s) transacted business within the venue in which this action is brought, either in person or through an agent, and the instant cause of action arose out of said transaction. 3. Based upon a reasonable inquiry, the Statute of Limitations for the cause of action asserted herein has not expired. Facts for Account 1 4. Plaintiffs predecessor in interest, COMENITY CAPITA L BANK (hereinafter "Original Creditor #1"), offered to open an ULTA BEAUTY-branded account, account no. ending in 3271 (hereinafter "Account #1"), in Defendants name on July 16, 2019, subject to the terms and conditions provided, or made available in electronic format, to the Defendant ("Agreement #1"). 5. Defendant accepted the offer by using Account #1. The last four digits of the Account number on the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, last payment, or balance transfer (the "Last Activity Statement") are 3271, and the balance owed as set forth in the Last Activity Statement was $1,975.82. 6. Defendant defaulted by failing to repay the Account #1 balance. The defendant's last payment was received on or about October 01, 2020 in the amount of $62.00. 7. Demand for payment of Account #1 was made on Defendant, but Defendant failed to make all the required payments, and as a result Account #1 was charged off on May 31, 2021 in the amount of $2,623.02. 8. The Original Creditor sold Account #1, including all right, title and interest in and to the outstanding balance owed by Defendant. Plaintiff purchased Account #1 on or about June 29, 2021 and is now the owner and assignee of Account #1. The account balance at time of the sale was $2,623.02. Facts for Account 2 2 of 5FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 05:09 PM INDEX NO. EF003713-2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 9. Plaintiffs predecessor in interest, COMENITY CAPITA L BANK (hereinafter "Original Creditor #2"), offered to open an IKEA-branded account, account no. ending in 1376 (hereinafter "Account #2"), in Defendants name on September 09, 2019, subject to the terms and conditions provided, or made available in electronic format, to the Defendant ("Agreement #2"). 10. Defendant accepted the offer by using Account #2. The last four digits of the Account number on the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, last payment, or balance transfer (the "Last Activity Statement") are 1376, and the balance owed as set forth in the Last Activity Statement was $1,542.92. 11. Defendant defaulted by failing to repay the Account #2 balance. The defendants last payment was received on or about October 10, 2020 in the amount of $41.00. 12. Demand for payment of Account #2 was made on Defendant, but Defendant failed to make all the required payments, and as a result Account #2 was charged off on May 31, 2021 in the amount of $1,973.79. 13. The Original Creditor sold Account #2, including all right, title and interest in and to the outstanding balance owed by Defendant. Plaintiff purchased Account #2 on or about June 29, 2021 and is now the owner and assignee of Account #2. The account balance at time of the sale was $1,973.79. First Cause of Action (Account 1) 14. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein. 15. As a result of Defendant breach of Agreement #1, and after crediting Defendant for all payments and credits, there is now due and owing by Defendant to Plaintiff the sum of $2,623.02, no part of which has been paid despite due demand therefor. Second Cause of Action (Account 2) 16. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein. 17. As a result of Defendant breach of Agreement #2, and after crediting Defendant for all payments and credits, there is now due and owing by Defendant to Plaintiff the sum of $1,973.79, no part of which has been paid despite due demand therefor. 3 of 5FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 05:09 PM INDEX NO. EF003713-2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant(s) in the amount of $4,596.81 together with costs and disbursem*nts. The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circ*mstances, the presentation of the within complaint and the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in part 130-1.1(c) of the rules of the Chief Administrator. Dated: JUNE 08, 2023 YOUR . By: MIT ELL SELIP ES . Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff 199 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, NY 11797-9004 (516) 686-8991; (866) 848-8975 ext. 8991; S&S File No. C606465, C606475 4 of 5FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2023 05:09 PM INDEX NO. EF003713-2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE __________________________________________________ Midland Credit Management, Inc PLAINTIFF, -AGAINST- INDEX NUMBER: MARIBEL GARRIS S&S FILE NO. C606465, C606475 DEFENDANT. __________________________________________________ NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the matter captioned above, which has been commenced by the filing of the accompanying documents with the County Clerk via the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System ("NYSCEF"), is subject to mandatory electronic filing pursuant to Section 202.5-bb of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts. This notice is being served as required by Subdivision (b) (3) of that Section. Counsel and/or parties must either: 1) immediately record their representation within the e-filed matter on the Consent/Represent page in NYSCEF; or 2) file the Notice of Opt-Out form to claim one of the limited exemptions from mandatory e-filing (see below). Failure to record representation may result in an inability to receive electronic notice of any document filings. Claiming an exemption will require the exempt party to serve and be served with hard copy documents. Counsel and unrepresented parties who intend to participate in e-filing must first create a NYSCEF account and obtain a userID and password. For additional information about electronic filing, and to create a NYSCEF account, visit the NYSCEF website at www.nycourts.gov/eBle or contact the NYSCEF Resource Center (phone: 646-386-3033; e-mail: efile@nycourts.gov; mailing address: 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007). Exemptions from mandatory e-filing (Section 202.5-bb(e)) are limited to: 1) attorneys who certify in good faith that they lack the computer hardware and/or scanner and/or internet connection or that they lack (along with all employees subject to their direction) the operational knowledge to comply with e-filing requirements; and 2) parties who expect to represent themselves and who choose not to participate in e-filing. (Such parties are encouraged to visit www.nycourthelp.gov or contact the Help Center in the court where the action is pending.) Dated: June 08, 2023 Selip & Stylianou, LLP By: MITCHELL SELIP ESQ., Attomey for Plaintiff P.O. Box 9004, 199 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, NY 11797-9004 (516) 686-8991; (800) 293-6006 ext. 8991; To: MARIBEL GARRIS, 310 LAKESIDE RD, NEWBURGH, NY 12550 5 of 5
Related Contentin Orange County
Case
Lvnv Funding Llc v. Rafael Cuello
Aug 26, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |EF007149-2024
Case
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nuta Stein
Aug 28, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF007209-2024
Case
Lvnv Funding Llc v. Khalil Abdurrahman
Aug 26, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |EF007147-2024
Case
Capital One, N.A. Successor By Merger To Capital One Bank (Usa), N.A. v. Jeanne K Grull
Aug 26, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF007139-2024
Case
Bank Of America N.A. v. Juana I Rentas
Aug 27, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF007173-2024
Case
Bank Of America N.A. v. Priscilla Johnson
Aug 27, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF007175-2024
Case
Lvnv Funding Llc v. Malcolm Miles
Aug 30, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF007280-2024
Case
Ford Motor Credit Company Llc D/B/A Lincoln Automotive Financial Services v. William D Cordero
Aug 27, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |EF007168-2024
Case
CITIBANK, N.A. v. KOTKIN, LAWRENCE
Nov 11, 2022 |Goldberg-Velazquez, Hon. Elena |OM-Other |OM-Other |EF006423-2022
Ruling
MCKESSON MEDICAL SURGICAL, INC. VS 'MATIAS' CLINICAL LABORATORY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Oct 04, 2024 |23PSCV01036
Case Number: 23PSCV01036 Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 Dept: 6 Plaintiff McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc.s Request for Entry of Default Judgment Defendant: Matias Clinical Laboratory, Inc., a California Corporation, dba Health Care Providers Laboratory TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff can submit a supplemental declaration and a new proposed Judgment with the correct calculations prior to the October 4, 2024 hearing date. BACKGROUND This is a breach of contract case. On April 10, 2023, plaintiff McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Matias Clinical Laboratory, Inc., a California Corporation, dba Health Care Providers Laboratory (Defendant) and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and common counts. On March 11, 2024, default was entered against Defendant on Plaintiffs motion for terminating sanctions. On August 12, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursem*nts; (5) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) ANALYSIS Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $149,125.65, including $117,117.27 in damages, $25,862.04 in interest, $5,612.34 in attorney fees, and $534.00 in costs. The Court finds a few issues with the default judgment package. First, the declaration regarding the missing original copies of the loan agreement required under Rule 3.1806 of the California Rules of Court is from Plaintiffs counsel, who does not set forth any basis for having personal knowledge regarding the original written agreement. (Hettena Decl. re: Copies of Documents in Lieu of Originals, ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8); Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d); Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 [declarations submitted in support of default judgment found to be useless as evidence where they were unintelligible and lacked foundation].) Second, Plaintiffs prejudgment interest calculation is incorrect. Plaintiff calculated 806 days from August 12, 2022, but the correct number of days is 731, i.e. August 12, 2022 to August 12, 2024. (See Hettena Decl. re: Account for Entry of Default Judgment and Brief Summary of Case Pursuant to CRC 3.1800, ¶ 8.) The correct amount of prejudgment interest would be $23,457.79, i.e., 731 days x $32.09 (10% of $117,117.27, divided by 365). Third, Plaintiffs attorney fees calculation is also incorrect. The correct amount under Local Rule 3.214 would be $3,061.17, i.e., $2,890.00 plus $171.17 (1% of $17,117.27). (Local Rule 3.214; see Hettena Decl. re: Account for Entry of Default Judgment and Brief Summary of Case Pursuant to CRC 3.1800, ¶ 9.) CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff can submit a supplemental declaration and a new proposed Judgment with the correct calculations prior to the October 4, 2024 hearing date.
Ruling
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. CALEB GARLOFF
Aug 28, 2024 |24CV13598
No appearances necessary. This is a collections case, as defined in Rule 3.740 of the California Rules of Court, filed on February 29, 2024. A proof of service is filed. Plaintiff must obtain default judgment within 360 days of filing the complaint. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.740(f).) This matter is continued for further CMC to February 26, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept 3.
Ruling
Td Bank Usa, N.a. vs Maria Silva
Aug 28, 2024 |22CV-03081
22CV-03081 TD Bank USA NA v. Maria SivaOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of SettlementAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. Appearto address the status of the Settlement.
Ruling
LVNV Funding LLC vs. Verhaeg
Aug 30, 2024 |23CVG-00502
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS. VERHAEGCase Number: 23CVG-00502This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default. The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted a defaultpacket that was returned by the clerk on August 5, 2024 because the application was not filed by fax and did notcontain an original signature. To allow time for cure of these defects, the matter is continued to Monday, October28, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of default. No appearance is necessary ontoday’s calendar.
Ruling
EXPAND TRADING CO., A CORPORATION INCORPORATED IN SAUDI ARABIA VS SEE GLOBAL EVENTS, INC., A CORPORATION INCORPORATED IN CALIFORNIA
Sep 03, 2024 |24STCP01594
Case Number: 24STCP01594 Hearing Date: September 3, 2024 Dept: 52 Tentative Ruling: Defendant See Global Events Inc.s Demurrer to Complaint Defendant See Global Events Inc. demurs to plaintiff Expand Trading Co.s complaint for recognition of foreign judgment. Plaintiffs complaint alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for recognition of a foreign judgment. The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act provides, If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment. (CCP § 1718(a).) Defendant demurs based on an exception provided under the statutory scheme: A court of this state shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if & [t]he defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend. (CCP § 1716(c)(1)(A).) Any such defect does not appear from the face of the complaint. The complaint alleges, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges Defendant was duly served pursuant to the Hague Convention with the Swiss equivalent of a summons in the Swiss Action pursuant to the laws of Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich. A true and correct copy of a certified English translation of the proof of service generated by the office of the Consulate General for the Swiss Consulate in San Francisco, International Legal Assistance, translated from German, together with the proof of FedEx delivery to Defendant, and the original German language copy thereof, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. (Comp., ¶ 18.) It further alleges, On November 2, 2023, Swiss counsel of record for Plaintiff emailed courtesy copies of the pleadings in the Swiss Action to each of Singer and Defendants principal, Martin Biallas (Biallas), and informed them that the proceedings had been filed (the Courtesy Email). A true and correct copy of the Courtesy Email is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. (Comp., ¶ 19.) The complaint also alleges, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges Defendant was given valid service of process under Swiss law and had actual notice of the proceedings associated with the Zurich Judgment, as made clear by the proof of service (Exhibit 3), the Courtesy Email (Exhibit 4), and Defendants failure to rebut that proof of service (constituting an adoptive admission thereto) (Exhibit 7). (Id., ¶ 35.) Defendant argues these allegations are insufficient because they are made on information and belief. A [p]laintiff may allege on information and belief any matters that are not within his personal knowledge, if he has information leading him to believe that the allegations are true [citation], and thus a pleading made on information and belief is insufficient if it merely assert[s] the facts so alleged without alleging such information that lead[s] [the plaintiff] to believe that the allegations are true. (Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 11581159.) Plaintiff alleges the information that leads it to believe the allegations are true. Plaintiff attached a copy of the proof of service (Comp., ¶ 18, Ex. 3) and a copy of the courtesy emails to defendant (id., ¶ 19, Ex. 4). These allegations suffice on demurrer. Defendant argues the courtesy email did not give actual notice of the lawsuit because it states plaintiff is in the process of serving you and would be pleased to send the filed lawsuit. (Comp., Ex. 4.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1716(c)(1)(A) provides that courts shall not recognize a foreign judgment when the defendant did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend. [N]otice of the proceeding does not necessarily mean receiving a copy of the complaint and summons. The courtesy email states, On 20 April 2023, we filed a claim with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich against SEE Global Events Inc. for an alleged debt. (Comp., Ex. 4.) Even if the email did not include a copy of the lawsuit, it gave defendant notice that there was a proceeding in a specific venue and explained the nature of the proceeding. On demurrer, the court cannot conclude defendant did not receive notice of the proceeding in time to defend. Defendant also contends that the service in Switzerland was not valid service under California law. (Demurrer, p. 7.) That is irrelevant. The judgment was rendered in Switzerland. The statutory scheme for recognizing foreign judgments does not require that the summons in the foreign action be served in accordance with California law. The issue is whether there was proper service under the relevant foreign law and, if so, whether such service was reasonably calculated, under all the circ*mstances, to impart actual notice. (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189, 203.) Nothing on the face of the complaint shows service was improper under Swiss law or that it was not reasonably calculated to impart actual notice. Finally, defendant makes arguments based on facts extrinsic to the complaint. For example, it argues, Defendant is a California corporation with one office located in Los Angeles. Defendant has no connection to Switzerland other than the statement in the underlying contract that suit shall be filed there, something that was requested by Plaintiff and not defendant. (Demurrer, p. 9.) Similarly, defendant argues the lawsuit was served on a receptionist in the lower lobby of [a] twenty-three floor building, and [t]here is no receptionist in Defendants suite. (Id., p. 4.) A demurrer test[s] the legal sufficiency of a complaint. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) The court cannot consider the declaration of Martin Biallas or any extrinsic evidence. The complaint is legally sufficient. Disposition Defendant See Global Events Inc.s demurrer to plaintiffs complaint is overruled. Defendant is ordered to answer within 20 days.
Ruling
American Express National Bank vs. Manuel Velasquez
Aug 28, 2024 |19CECG03371
Re: American Express National Bank v. Manuel Velasquez Superior Court Case No. 19CECG03371Hearing Date: August 28, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: By Plaintiff to Vacate Conditional Dismissal and for Entry of JudgmentTentative Ruling: To grant plaintiff's motion to vacate the conditional dismissal and to enterjudgment pursuant to stipulation. Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff AmericanExpress National Bank and against defendant Manuel Velasquez in the amount of$6,141.27.Explanation: The court has authority to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of CivilProcedure section 664.6, which provides: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).) "If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, itshould grant the motion and enter a formal judgment . . . . The statute expressly providesfor the court to 'enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.'” (Hines v. Lukes(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182–1183, internal citations omitted.) In their settlement here, the parties agreed that the court would retain jurisdictionto enforce the agreement. (Dyle decl., ex. A, ¶ 21.) Therefore, the court has jurisdictionto grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The parties agreed in writing that defendant would pay a total of $34,078.27 inaccordance with a payment schedule. Plaintiff concedes that defendant madepayments in the amount of $28,500, but defendant failed to make payments on theremaining balance. (Dyle decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff has shown that defendant is now in default on the agreement and is liablefor $6,141.27, comprised of $5,578.27 in damages and $563.00 in costs. Therefore, plaintiffis entitled to a formal judgment in the total amount of $6,141.27 in accordance with theterms of the settlement. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 8/26/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
On Deck Capital, Inc. vs. Knowlton, George
Sep 09, 2024 |S-CV-0046229
S-CV-0046229 On Deck Capital, Inc. vs. Knowlton, George** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouragedAppearance required.
Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA N.A. vs SANTOS
Aug 26, 2024 |CVPS2402470
BANK OF AMERICA N.A. vs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings byCVPS2402470SANTOS BANK OF AMERICA N.A.Tentative Ruling: Granted.No opposition filed.Review of answer and amended answer does not dispute Plaintiff’s complaint.Plaintiff to file proposed judgment within 5 days of this order becoming final.Plaintiff to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
Document
American Express National Bank v. William Gregorio
Aug 27, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF007182-2024
Document
Kinecta Federal Credit Union v. Alan M. Barris
May 09, 2024 |David J. Squirrell |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF003713-2024
Document
Nbt Bank v. Jonathan Tatis
Feb 29, 2024 |Elena Goldberg-Velazquez |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |EF001689-2024
Document
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nina Deroziere
Aug 27, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF007170-2024
Document
Ashely Neely v. Credit Collection Services, Equifax Information Services, Llc, Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Jan 09, 2024 |Maria S |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |EF000320-2024
Document
Kinecta Federal Credit Union v. Alan M. Barris
May 09, 2024 |David J. Squirrell |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF003713-2024
Document
Citibank, N.A. v. Lawrence Kotkin
Nov 11, 2022 |Elena Goldberg-Velazquez |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF006423-2022
Document
Lvnv Funding Llc v. Beth Kaufman
Aug 29, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |EF007229-2024
