DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23-CLJ-05977·sanmateo·Civil·Contract
Hearing 10 days agoGRANTED

UNIFUND CCR, LLC vs. CAROLINA SILVA-MIRANDA

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2026
Department
20
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$11,698.92$384.07$12,082.99

Parties

PlaintiffUNIFUND CCR, LLC
DefendantCAROLINA SILVA-MIRANDA

Attorneys

SPENCER PENUELAfor Plaintiff
ADAM FULLMANfor Defendant

Ruling

August 14, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 25 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 10:00 AM Line 1 23-CLJ-05977 UNIFUND CCR, LLC vs. CAROLINA SILVA-MIRANDA

UNIFUND CCR, LLC SPENCER PENUELA CAROLINA SILVA-MIRANDA ADAM FULLMAN

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Unifund CCR, LLC’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is not opposed and is GRANTED. The Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel Spencer Penuela filed 7/13/2026 attaches a copy of the relevant Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment upon Default (the “Stipulation”), establishing the settlement terms, defendant Carolina Silva-Miranda’s uncured default and its counsel’s non-response, allowing entry of Judgment. Penuela Decl. ¶¶ 4-6 and Exh.

1. The Stipulation expressly allows for enforcement of its terms under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. Penuela Delc., Exh. 1 – Stipulation ¶ 3.

The Court orders Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for $11,698.92 in principle, plus $384.07 in court costs, for a total Judgment of $12,082.99.

If uncontested, the Court will sign and serve the proposed Order and proposed Judgment submitted with the motion, and waives any other order after hearing.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

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