2016-00200201-CL-CL

Wells Fargo Bank vs. Ruth A. Schafer

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Filed By: Heidari, Golnaz

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Wells Fargo”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJOP”) is unopposed and is GRANTED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, which attaches court filings from this action, is granted.

This is a consumer credit card action in which Plaintiff alleges common counts including account stated and money lent.

On December 16, 2016Defendant Ruth A Schafer (“Defendant” or “Schafer”) filed a form Answer, which included a box that was checked so as to reflect a general denial.

On July 5, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to have its requests for admissions deemed admitted as against Defendant.

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “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.” (C.C.P. 438(c)(1)(A).) The Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.) “A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion 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.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. ( Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.) Further, 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] (Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 C. 481, 482; Morris v. Harbor Boat Bldg. Co. (1952) 112 C.A.2d 882, 886; Columbia Cas. Co. v. Northwestern. Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 C.A.3d 457, 468), Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604- 605.) Thus, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may extend consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice; in doing so, the Court performs essentially the same task as ruling on a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146.) “(A) deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. ( Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983; Weil & Brown, Cal. Civil Pro. Before Trial (Rutter Guide, 2015 Update) § 8:1375.1.)

Here, the Complaint properly alleges the requisite allegations for common counts. Even if the Answer were to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint, as a result of Plaintiff’s motion to deem matters admitted being granted, Defendant was deemed to have admitted that she had a credit card issued by Plaintiff, that the last payment was made prior to April 4, 2016, that she received billing

statements, and that she owes the principal sum of $6,690.95 and that she has no defense to the action. (Exhs. B-C to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice.)

Based upon these admissions, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED in favor of moving party plaintiff, without leave to amend.

The Court will sign the proposed judgment and order for the principal debt in the amount of $6,690.95, but will cross out the provisions of the proposed order regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff must separately seek attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Rules of Court after judgment is entered.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.