DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV-03230·merced·Civil·Contract
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED

Discover Bank vs. Nickolas Lemas

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Hearing date
Jun 24, 2026
Department
9
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffDiscover Bank
DefendantNickolas Lemas

Ruling

627 W. 21st Street, Merced

Wednesday, June 24, 2026 10:00 a.m.

The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear.

2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying CourtCall (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.

Case No. Title / Description

24CV-03230 Discover Bank vs. Nickolas Lemas

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings by plaintiff Discover Bank is GRANTED without leave to amend the answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of written contract against defendant Nickolas Lemas. Defendant’s amended answer filed on September 4, 2024, admits all statements of the complaint and does not allege any facts constituting a defense. In the absence of any opposition indicating how Defendant might amend his answer to allege a defense, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to costs as prevailing party. The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted with the moving papers.

The court trial scheduled for October 14, 2026, is vacated.

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