Preview
PLD-C-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Hunt & Henriques, LLP Donald Sherrill #266038 | | Brian Langedyk #337250 7017 Realm Drive San José CA 95119 Cour of California CA Debt Collection License No. 10136-99 F Supenan F County af Butte TELEPHONE NO: (800) 680-2426 FAX NO. (Optional): (408) 362-2299 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): L 7/12/2024 L ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE E E STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: 1775 Concord Avenue D CITY AND ZIP CODE: Chico CA 95928 Deputy BRANCH NAME: Chico- North County Courthouse eee aity PLAINTIFF: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. DEFENDANT: MARC C JENSEN poEs1 To CONTRACT COMPLAINT AMENDED COMPLAINT (Number): CROSS-COMPLAINT AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT (Number): J uris diction (check all that apply): Gd ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE (does not exceed $35,000) CASE NUMBER: Amount demanded Cy does not exceed $10,000 exceeds $10,000 _ ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $35,000) 24CV02294 ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint or cross-complaint from limited to unlimited from unlimited to limited 1. Plaintiff* (name or names): JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. alleges causes of action against defendant* (name or names): MARC C JENSEN 2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 4 3. a. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult Gd except plaintiff (name): JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (1) a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) Cy an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) other (specify): A National Banking Association organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America b. Plaintiff (name): a. has complied with the fictitious business name laws and is doing business under the fictitious name of (specify): b. has complied with all licensing requirements as a licensed (specify): c. Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3c. 4. a. Each defendant named above is a natural person except defendant (name): except defendant (name): (1) a business organization, form unknown (1) a business organization, form unknown(J) (2) acorporation (2) a corporation CI (3) CI an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) a public entity (describe): (4) CI a public entity (describe): (5) CI other (specify): (5) other (specify): *if this form is used as a cross-compiaint, plaintiff means cross-complainant and defendant means cross-defendant. Page 1 of 2Form Appr oved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California COMPLAINT-Contract Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12PLD-C-001 [Rev January 1, 2024) 1576225.001 PLD-C-001 SHORT TITLE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. MARC C JENSEN CASE NUMBER: 4. (Continued) b.The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff. (1) Cc] Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): were the agents or employees of the named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment. (2) CI Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff. c. [] Information about additional defendants who are natural persons is contained in Attachment 4c. d. Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): 5. C7 Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. is excused from complying because (specify): 6. [] This action is subject to Civil Code section 1812.10 Civil Code section 2984.4. 7. This court is the proper court because a defendant entered into the contract here. a defendant lived here when the contract was entered into. Gd a defendant lives here now. the contract was to be performed here. e. f CI a defendant is a corporation or unincorporated association and its principal place of business is here. real property that is the subject of this action is located here. other (specify): 8. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached): Breach of Contract [Xx] Common Counts Other (specify): 9. Other allegations: 10. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for a. LX] damages of: $18,075.69 b. interest on the damages (1) according to the proof (2) XC at the rate of (specify): 0.0000 percent per year from (date): January 31, 2024 c. L] attorney's fees (1) LJof: $ (2) [] according to proof. d. other (specify): 11. Cy The paragraphs of this pleading alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers): Date: June 6, 2024Brian Langedyk #337250 > (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGN RE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) (If you wish to verify this pleading, affix a verification.)PLD-C-001 [Rev January 1, 2024] COMPLAINT-Contract Page 2 of 2 1576225.001 SHORT TITLE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. MARC C JENSEN CASE NUMBER: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION-Common Counts (number) ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [X] Cross Complaint - a (Use separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) CC-1. Plaintiff (name): JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. alleges that defendant (name): MARC C JENSEN became indebted to [XJ plaintiff other (name): a. Gd within the last four years (1) Gd onan open book account for money due. (2) LX] because an account was stated in writing by and between plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed that defendant was indebted to plaintiff. b. [] withinthelast twoyears four years (1) for money had and received by defendant for the use and benefit of plaintiff. (2) for work, labor, services and materials rendered at the special instance and request of defendant and for which defendant promised to pay plaintiff. the sum of $ oo the reasonable value. (3) for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered to defendant and for which defendant promised to pay plaintiff L] the sum of $ the reasonable value. (4) CI for money lent by plaintiff to defendant at defendant's request (5) for money paid, laid out, and expended to or for defendant at defendant's special instance and request. (6) other (specify): CC-2. $18,075.69 which is the reasonable value, is due and unpaid despite plaintiffs demand, plus prejudgment interest according to proof OX at the rate of 0.0000 percent per year from (date): January 31, 2024 cc-3. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees by an agreement or a statute of $ according to proof. cc-4. Other: 3 Page Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for O Judicial Council of Use CAUSE OF ACTION-Common Counts Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12 www.courtinfo.ca.govPLO-C-001(2) [Rev. January 1, 2009) 1576225.001 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE CHICO JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATEMENT OF LOCATION/VENUECASE NAME: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. MARC C JENSEN,CASE NUMBER:Please check ONE of the following statements to indicate the basis for your filing of the complaint inthis Judicial District and fill in the address. 1. Cause of Action arose in this Judicial District. The address of the cause of action is: Street City Zip Code 2. Property located in this judicial district. The address of this property is: Street City Zip Code 3. Tort occurred in this judicial district. The address of the tort is: Street (if known) City Zip Code (or nearest major intersection) 4. Contract entered into or to be performed in this judicial district. The address where contract entered into or to be performed is: Street (if known) City Zip Code xX 5. Defendant resides in this judicial district. The address of the defendant is: 871 INYO ST , CHICO CA 95928-4129 Street City Zip Code| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true andcorrect.DATED: June 6, 2024 Signature Plaintiff's Attorney Hunt eénriques LLP 1576225.001
Related Contentin Butte County
Case
PNC Bank, National Association vs Schnepel, Amanda
Jul 25, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - under 10,000 |24CV02479
Case
LVNV Funding, LLC vs Murray, Donna
Jul 25, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02489
Case
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee Of Synchrony Bank vs Avelar, Dela
Jul 29, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02501
Case
JP Morgan Chase Bank vs Nero, Nicholas J
Jul 26, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - under 10,000 |24CV02492
Case
Two Jinn Inc vs Cornejo, Carlos Jose et al
Jul 23, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - under 10,000 |24CV02446
Case
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank, N A vs Gabriel, Richard
Jul 26, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02498
Case
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank, N A vs Taylor, Jeremy L
Jul 26, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - under 10,000 |24CV02499
Case
CKS Prime Investments LLC vs Angle, Damon E
Jul 23, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02449
Case
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank, N A vs Arroyo, Angelyn
Jul 29, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02500
Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs ALVAREZ
Aug 04, 2024 |Frank Anthony Moschetti |CVCO2400924
MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEMCVCO2400924 BANK OF AMERICA VS ALVAREZ MATTERS ADMITTED BY BANK OFAMERICATentative Ruling: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s moving papers, declaration andexhibits. No opposition was filed by Defendant. The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff.Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s requests for admissions will be admittedunless responses in substantial compliance are served prior to the hearing [CCP2033.280(c)]
Ruling
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. vs. ROSELLEN PEBELIER
Jul 31, 2024 |23CV13274
No appearances necessary. On the Court’s own motion, the CMC is vacated as a dismissal of the entire action without prejudice was entered on July 15, 2024.
Ruling
Capital One, N.A. vs. Bavetta
Jul 29, 2024 |22CVG-00979
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS. BAVETTACase Number: 22CVG-00979Tentative Ruling on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Per CCP § 664.6: Plaintiff CapitalOne, N.A. seeks to vacate the dismissal entered on March 2, 2023 and enforcement of the Settlement Agreementfiled on March 1, 2023. Although the Motion was timely noticed, Defendant Amberly Bavetta did not file anOpposition.Request for Judicial Notice. Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of the Stipulation Agreement filedwith the Court on March 1, 2023. This request is granted pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 452(d) and 453.Merits. CCP § 664.6 provides the Court with authority, upon motion, to enter judgment pursuant to the terms ofa settlement agreement entered into in writing, or orally before the Court. If requested by the parties, the Courtalso retains jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of thesettlement. Id.The parties entered into a stipulation on February 14, 2023. The terms of the agreement are straightforward andset forth that Defendant is to pay Plaintiff the sum of $7,961.70 in monthly installments of $443 from February20, 2023 to June 20, 2024 with a final payment of $430.70 due by July 20, 2024; that failure to make timelypayments will result in Defendant’s default; and that in the event of a default, Plaintiff may obtain judgmentpursuant to CCP § 664.6 for $7,961.70 plus court costs pursuant to a Memorandum of Costs, less any paymentsmade to date, and may execute judgment immediately. The agreement also includes a CCP § 1542 (generalrelease) waiver. The agreement does not provide for attorney’s fees.The declaration of attorney Brian Langedyk establishes that Defendant has paid $3,494.70 towards the agreedsettlement amount and has failed to make a payment since March 25, 2024. Plaintiff has presented sufficientevidence that Defendant is in default of the Stipulation Agreement. Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs thatprovides for costs in the amount of $598.50.The motion is GRANTED. The Court having retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6, the dismissal is setaside. Judgment will be entered in the amount of $4,012.00 ($7,961.70 principal minus $3,494.70 in paymentsmade) plus $598.50 in costs for a total of $4,610.50. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order and proposed Judgmentthat will be executed by the Court.
Ruling
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC vs SALAS, JOHN R
Aug 04, 2024 |CV-23-003477
CV-23-003477 – ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC vs SALAS, JOHN R – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and of Nonappearance – GRANTED, and unopposed.The Court finds that Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute the stated cause of action against the Defendant, and the Answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(A).) The Answer does not defeat any of Plaintiff’s Claims. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered on the underlying debt in the amount of $9,108.64.The trial date is VACATED.
Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs ALVAREZ
Aug 03, 2024 |Frank Anthony Moschetti |CVCO2400924
MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEMCVCO2400924 BANK OF AMERICA VS ALVAREZ MATTERS ADMITTED BY BANK OFAMERICATentative Ruling: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s moving papers, declaration andexhibits. No opposition was filed by Defendant. The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff.Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s requests for admissions will be admittedunless responses in substantial compliance are served prior to the hearing [CCP2033.280(c)]
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 29, 2024 |23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTROCase Number: 23CVG-00362Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. movesfor terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in theamount of $1,572.75 for each motion.Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, andset for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days beforethe hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For serviceby email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated bycounting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holidayof May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail nolater than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was servedon May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion isdenied.Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & TractSociety of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally beimposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justificationhas been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary orissue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect thedenial.Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates thismatter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance isnecessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Aug 04, 2024 |23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTROCase Number: 23CVG-00362Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. movesfor terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in theamount of $1,572.75.Merits of Motion: Pursuant to CCP § 2023.030(b-d) the Court may impose issue, evidentiary or terminatingsanctions against a party that engages in the misuse of the discovery process. Terminating sanctions are a lastresort. Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible& Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generallybe imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id.On April 5, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s prior motion to compel discovery responses. Defendant wasordered to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Production of Documents, Set One. To dateno responses have been provided by the Defendant. Plaintiff now seeks terminating sanctions against Defendantfor his failure to provide responses. The motion only seeks terminating sanctions and did not seek monetary orissue sanctions. Insufficient evidence and justification have been provided as to why terminating sanctions areappropriate instead of evidentiary or issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions wouldbe premature. See Lopez, supra 246 Cal.App.4th at 604.Defendant is admonished for his failure to provide the responses and for a clear violation of a prior Court order.Defendant shall immediately provide the responses.The motion is DENIED without prejudice. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modifiedto reflect the denial.
Ruling
ALLY BANK vs WARD
Aug 01, 2024 |CVRI2304220
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OFCVRI2304220 ALLY BANK VS WARD POSSESSION - CLAIM ANDDELIVERY BY ALLY BANKTentative Ruling:GRANT
Document
PNC Bank, National Association vs Schnepel, Amanda
Jul 25, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - under 10,000 |24CV02479
Document
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank, N A vs Gabriel, Richard
Jul 26, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02498
Document
Velocity Investments, LLC vs Williams, Steven
Jul 25, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02488
Document
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank, N A vs Neher, Wyatt
Jul 26, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02493
Document
Velocity Investments, LLC vs Williams, Steven
Jul 25, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02488
Document
TD Bank USA, NA vs Garrison, Steven
Jul 23, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - under 10,000 |24CV02458
Document
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank, N A vs Ranger, Victoria L
Jul 26, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02494
Document
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Citibank, N A vs Gabriel, Richard
Jul 26, 2024 |Benson, Stephen E |(09) Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - Small Claims Juris |24CV02498
