DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2025-0957·yolo·Civil·Breach of Guaranty
Hearing 2 months agoMotion for summary adjudication GRANTED; request for costs DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Silva

motion for summary adjudication; request for costs

Hearing date
Jun 23, 2026
Department
Thirteen
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
DefendantEdgar Silva

Ruling

Case: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Silva Case No. CV2025-0957 Hearing Date: June 23, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s unopposed motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Plaintiff has established all required elements of its second cause of action (breach of guaranty) against defendant Edgar Silva. (Ibid.; Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546-47; UMF 1-18.)

Plaintiff’s request for costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, 1033.5.) A prevailing party must file and serve the memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).) As judgment has not yet been entered, plaintiff’s request for costs is premature.

The case management conference set for July 7, 2026, is VACATED.

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312, or further notice is required.

4 of 5

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share