WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. ROWENA Y MAGBOO

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 9 24-CLJ-03455 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. ROWENA Y MAGBOO

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ASHLEY MULHORN ROWENA Y MAGBOO PRO SE

Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed Motion filed by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings by the plaintiff may be made on the ground that 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Id., subd. (d).)

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that all six causes of action in the Complaint allege facts sufficient to support these claims, and defendant’s Answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) money lent; (4) money paid, laid out and expended; (5) open book account; and (6) account stated.

A. The Complaint Alleges Facts Sufficient to Support All Six Causes of Action

Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to support the first and second causes of action for breach of contract. The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach of the contract, and (4) the resulting damage to plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) The first and second causes of action allege that plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract; plaintiff performed all obligations except those that plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing; defendant breached the contract; and plaintiff suffered $9,241.80 in damages. (Complaint, at pp. 3-4.)

Plaintiff also sufficiently alleges the third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action, which are common count claims. (See Rubinstein v. Fakheri (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 797, 809 [money lent is a common count claim]; Moya v. Northrup (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 276, 280 [money paid, laid out and expended is a common count claim; see also Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 964 [plaintiff filed action alleging common counts of open book account and account stated].)

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ The allegations of claims using common counts are good against a general demurrer. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) The only essential allegations of a common count are “(1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.” (Ibid.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the equivalent of a general demurrer. (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.) These causes of action allege that defendant is indebted to plaintiff for money paid by plaintiff, and that defendant owes plaintiff $9,241.80. (Complaint, at pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff therefore sufficiently alleges these common count claims.

B. Defendant’s Answer Fails to Allege Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Defense to the Complaint

“On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may take judicial notice of something that cannot reasonably be controverted, even if it negates an express allegation of the pleading.” (Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549, disapproved on another ground in Black Sky Capital, LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156.) A court may take judicial notice of a party’s admissions or concessions, but only in cases where the admission cannot reasonably be controverted such as answers to requests for admissions. (Acre v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.)

Defendant filed an Answer denying the claims in the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. However, the court subsequently ordered that plaintiff’s Request for Admissions be deemed admitted against defendant. (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, exh. 3.) As part of these admissions, defendant admits to owing $9,241.80 on the subject credit card and to not having any defenses to the Complaint. (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, exhs. 2-3.) Because the court deemed these matters admitted, they cannot reasonably be controverted. Defendant therefore cannot allege facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

C. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

D. Judgment

Judgment will be entered for $9,241.80 in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.

E. Costs

Plaintiff’s proposed order and proposed judgment also include $285.00 in court costs. However, not only has plaintiff failed to provide any support for such costs, the request for costs is premature. Plaintiff is directed to comply with the proper procedure for seeking costs by filing and serving a memorandum of costs after a judgment is entered. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.