EXHIBIT(S) - B - LAST USE OF CARD STATEMENT August 01, 2024 (2025)

Case

Capital One, N.A. v. David W Mather Jr

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1701

Case

Berkshire Bank v. Katherine M. Gray a/k/a Katherine M. Sandford

Aug 02, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |EF2024-1693

Case

Td Bank Usa, N.A. v. Kelly Niles

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1700

Case

Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Elizabeth M Schwartz

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1702

Case

Capital One, N.A. v. Dana M Goldblatt

Jul 31, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1678

Case

Lvnv Funding Llc v. Trent M Hammon

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |EF2024-1696

Case

Td Bank Usa, N.A. v. Lise Yacco

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1699

Case

Lvnv Funding Llc v. Dean Curtis aka Dean W Curtis

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |EF2024-1695

Case

Td Bank Usa, N.A. v. Tiffany M Jones

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1698

Ruling

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. vs Enrriqueta Flores

Aug 12, 2024 |24CV-00951

24CV-00951 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Enrriqueta FloresMotion for Order that Requests for Admission be Deemed AdmittedAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.Case Management ConferenceAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.

Ruling

Bank of America, N.A. vs Danika Brunelli

Aug 10, 2024 |18CV01034

18CV01034BANK OF AMERICA N.A. v. BRUNELLI OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT) Parties are to appear to confirm the amounts that are included in the parties’ papers.

Ruling

Bank of America, N.A. vs Danika Brunelli

Aug 11, 2024 |18CV01034

18CV01034BANK OF AMERICA N.A. v. BRUNELLI OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT) Parties are to appear to confirm the amounts that are included in the parties’ papers.

Ruling

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro

Aug 09, 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

STARSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs MOTT

Aug 11, 2024 |Frank Anthony Moschetti |CVCO2303927

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY FROM LIMITEDSTARSTONE NATIONALCVCO2303927 TO UNLIMITED BY STARSTONE NATIONALINSURANCE VS MOTTINSURANCETentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.

Ruling

Bank of America, N.A. vs Danika Brunelli

Aug 09, 2024 |18CV01034

18CV01034BANK OF AMERICA N.A. v. BRUNELLI OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT) Parties are to appear to confirm the amounts that are included in the parties’ papers.

Ruling

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro

Aug 10, 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

LVNV Funding LLC vs. Mark Walker

Aug 05, 2024 |C23-00636

C23-00636CASE NAME: LVNV FUNDING LLC VS. MARK WALKER*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT AND/OR EACH CAUSE OF ACTIONTHEREINFILED BY: MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP*TENTATIVE RULING:*Cross-Defendant Marvin R. Weingarten’s Motion to Strike Mark Walker’s Cross-Complaint, pursuantto Code of Civil Procedure section 426.16, is denied.BackgroundOn or about August 2016, plaintiff Mark Walker opened a credit card account with NavyFederal Credit Union (NFCU). Walker incurred charges on the account totaling approximately $26,164at the time of charge off. NFCU sold the debt to LVNV Funding, LLC (LVNV), which retained MandarichLaw Group (MLG) to collect the debt. On March 22, 2023, LVNV, through its counsel, MLG, file alawsuit against Walker to collect the debt (collection action).In response to the collection action, Walker filed a cross-complaint against LVNV, MLG and MLGattorney Teona Pipia. Walker alleges that statute of limitations to collect on the debt expired on orabout December 19, 2022. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 26.) Walker also alleges that cross-defendants filedthe collection complaint after the statute of limitations expired, in violation of the federal Fair DebtCollection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(RFDCPA). (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 28, and see Civ. Code § 1788.17 [incorporating obligations under theFDCPA into the RFDCPA].)On or about March 11, 2024, Walker amended the cross-complaint again to name MartinWeingarten, another MLG attorney. On May 17, 2024, Weingarten filed this anti-SLAPP motion tostrike the fair debt collection practices act claims. Weingarten argues Walker’s claims arise fromprotected litigation activity (namely, the filing of the collection complaint on behalf of MLG clientLVNV) and Walker cannot show a probability of prevailing on the merits. On this second prong,Weingarten claims that while he qualifies as a debt collector, he did not take any action that violatedthe FDCPA or RDCPA and is therefore not individually liable. Weingarten’s motion is supported not bya declaration of Weingarten himself, but of cross-defendant Pipia stating: “The Complaint filed byMLG was filed by me. I reviewed the account and approved the filing of the complaint. Mr.Weingarten was not involved in drafting the Collection Complaint. Mr. Weingarten had noinvolvement in reviewing the lawsuit for filing or approval of filing the lawsuit. Mr. Weingarten didnot sign, file, submit or advocate for the Collection Complaint.” (Pipia Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)Legal StandardsAnti-SLAPP analysis under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (hereafter sometimes referred to as"section 425.16") proceeds in two familiar steps. In the first step, the defendant or moving party mustmake "a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one 'arising from' protectedactivity." (Barry v. State Bar of California (2017) 2 Cal.5th 318, 321, quotations omitted (Barry).) In thiscontext, the term "protected activity" refers to speech or petitioning activities. (Barry, 2 Cal.5th at p.321.) A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for theclaim; otherwise stated, "the defendant's act underlying the plaintiff's cause of action [must] itself[be] ... an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech." (Park v. Board of Trustees ofCalifornia State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1063, quotations omitted (Park).) "[T]he focus is ondetermining what 'the defendant's activity [is] that gives rise to his or her asserted liability—andwhether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning.'" (Ibid.) In teasing out whetherprotected conduct exists, courts should consider the elements of the challenged claim and whatactions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability. (Ibid.)If the court finds the defendant or moving party succeeds at the first step, then the burden shifts tothe plaintiff to "demonstrate[] a probability of prevailing on the claim." (Ibid. [quotations omitted].)At the second step, courts "evaluate the defendants' evidence only to determine if it defeats thatsubmitted by the plaintiff as a matter of law.' [Citation.] '[I]n order to establish the requisiteprobability of prevailing [citation], the plaintiff need only have "'stated and substantiated a legallysufficient claim.'" [Citation.] "Put another way, the plaintiff 'must demonstrate that the complaint isboth legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorablejudgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.'"' [Citation.] ... That burden [is] notparticularly high." (Area 51 Productions, Inc. v. City of Alameda (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 581, 602.)"Claims with the requisite minimal merit may proceed." (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 94.)Step One–Protected ActivityFiling a collection action is protected activity under California's anti-SLAPP statute. (See, e.g., Yu v.Signet Bank/Virginia (2002)103 Cal. App. 4th 298, 316 ["Since the [plaintiff's'] case is based entirely onthe collection actions [creditor-banks] filed against them, we conclude that it satisfies the 'arisingfrom' standard."], disapproved of on other grounds in Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris CerulloWorld Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 637, 646). Walker concedes his claim against MLG arises fromprotected activity, namely the allegations in the collection complaint MLG filed on behalf of its client,LVNV. The parties’ dispute centers on the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis.Step Two–Probability of PrevailingWalker claims he has demonstrated a probability of success on the claims against Weingarten. Inparticular, Walker contends that Weingarten does not dispute that he is a debt collector, that Walkeris a debtor/consumer, or that the debt falls within the scope of the FDCPA and the RFDCPA.Weingarten claims he “was not involved in drafting or approving the Collection Complaint,” and “didnot sign, file, submit or advocate for the Collection Complaint.” Therefore, Weingarten argues he“cannot be found liable for representations in the Collection Complaint.” Walker responds thatWeingarten has not established this assertion as a matter of law, and cross-defendants’ discoveryresponses are to the contrary. Walker claims that because he is able to point to evidence thatWeingarten engaged in his own debt collection activity with regard to his debt, Walker meets the“minimal merit” threshold to defeat the anti-SLAPP motion.On March 8, 2024, MLG served its Responses to Cross-Complainant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One)and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), accompanied by production of documentsBates-stamped MLG 000001 through MLG 000146. In the interrogatory responses, Cross-Defendantsstated as follows: SPECIAL INTERROGATORY (SET ONE) NO. 8: Please describe in complete detail, step-by-step, the process which resulted in Exhibit “1” [the collections complaint] being drafted, filed, and served on Defendant/Cross- Complainant, MARK T. WALKER. YOUR answer should include references to any and all DOCUMENTS which support your answer. RESPONSE: [Objections]… Notwithstanding these objections, and without these objections (sic), Martin Weingarten reviewed the account and confirmed the account was within the statute of limitations in accordance with the procedure for initial review of a referred matter, executing the review check list on January 27, 2023. Teona Pipia reviewed the lawsuit and executed the Suit Review Check List on or about March 13, 2022, signing the lawsuit, which was then transmitted to a process server for filing. Cross-Defendants further stated in interrogatory responses: SPECIAL INTERROGATORY (SET ONE) NO. 11: Please IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS with any role or responsibility for reviewing, approving, evaluating or implementing any method, policy, procedure, or practice adapted by YOU to avoid violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, and describe such person’s role or responsibility. RESPONSE: [Objections] … Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving these objections, Christopher Mandarich, Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 164 North Peoria Street, Chicago, IL 60601; Teona Pipia, 50 E. 16th Street, # 1203, Chicago, IL 60616, 716-204-5270; and Martin Weingarten, 5807 Topanga Canyon Blvd H302, Woodland Hills, CA 91367, 818-992-1980, all of whom have reviewed and implemented the procedures described in response to Interrogatory 10. Their business address is 550 W. Washington Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, 877-285-4918. Responding Party is represented by counsel, and Mr. Mandarich and Ms. Pipia should be contacted through counsel.Walker argues that in addition to the above interrogatory, cross-defendants’ document productionindicates that Weingarten was responsible for accepting placement of the debt, determining that thedebt was within statute, and attempts to collect the debt. The March 8, 2024, document productionincludes a document Bates-numbered MLG 000112 through MLG 000113 and titled “Review:AR_00INITAL, Attorney Review / Initial Placement.” This document states that it was reviewed onJanuary 27, 2023 by “MRW” (presumably moving party Martin R. Weingarten). The document alsocontains a notation indicating that Weingarten “reviewed the account and confirmed the account waswithin the statute of limitations.”Walker asserts that a document from the March 8, 2024, document production titled “HistoryReport/For Account: 4650358/Mark T. Walker” also supports Walker’s position and contradicts Pipia’sdeclaration statements. Page MLG 000093 bears a notation “Review AR 00INITAL Passed” datedJanuary 27, 2023, and tagged to operator “MRW.” According to Walker, this confirms the statute oflimitations review by Weingarten described above. Additionally, page MLG 000092 bears thenotation below, also tagged to operator “MRW.” Action: 01/27/2023 12:00 AM 00DM Initial Demand Letter Review Pass Auto Add" Review Pass Auto Add AssignedTo: XAA Completed CM-Complete: 01/29/2023 02:52 A By: MX2According to Walker, this notation indicates that user MRW (Weingarten) reviewed and approved theinitial demand letter related to Walker’s debt. Walker argues the foregoing shows that Weingartentook his own actions which led to the collection complaint being filed, giving rise to liability under theFDCPA/RFDCPA.Weingarten responds that Walker has failed to demonstrate that he made any representations toWalker, much less material misrepresentations. Nor has Walker established that Weingarten’s act of“approving the file” for collection was unfair or unconscionable since the debt, even if time-barred,could still be collected (albeit voluntarily). Weingarten adds that Walker cites no case on analogousfacts in which an individual was found to be liable. Weingarten states that just because he believedthe statute of limitations had not run does not result in the conclusion that he advocated for litigationin this case.As to whether Weingarten can be held individually liable, courts have interpreted FDCPA's definitionof "debt collector" to include not only debt collection businesses, but under certain circumstances,employees of those businesses as well. (See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); see also Robinson v. ManagedAccounts Receivable Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2009) 654 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1059 [holding that employees of adebt collection organization may be held personally liable as debt collectors for acts committedduring the scope of employment].) In order to assert a claim against an individual employee under theFDCPA, Plaintiff must show the employee: "(1) materially participated in collecting the debt at issue;(2) 'exercise[d] control over the affairs of [the] business'; (3) was 'personally involved in the collectionof the debt at issue'; or (4) 'was regularly engaged, directly . . . [or] indirectly, in the collection ofdebts.'" (Schwarm v. Craighead (E.D. Cal. 2008) 552 F.Supp.2d 1056, 1073 [citations omitted].)Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute— i.e., that arises fromprotected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit— is a SLAPP that is subject to beingstricken under the statute. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 793 [stating "aplaintiff's burden at the second anti-SLAPP step is a low one, requiring only a showing that a cause ofaction has at least 'minimal merit within the meaning of the anti SLAPP statute'"].)"In deciding the question of potential merit, the trial court considers the pleadings and evidentiarysubmissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant (CCP § 425.16, subd. (b)(2)); though the courtdoes not weigh the credibility or comparative probative strength of competing evidence, it shouldgrant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant's evidence supporting the motion defeats theplaintiff's attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim." (Wilson v. Parker, Covert &Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 [emphasis added]; see also Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.v. Fitzgibbons (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 515, 530 [a plaintiff or cross-complainant in "a SLAPP motion [isallowed] a certain degree of leeway in establishing a probability of prevailing on its claims due to 'theearly stage at which the motion is brought and heard [citation] and the limited opportunity toconduct discovery'"]; Monster Energy Co., 7 Cal.5th at 795 [stating that "at the second anti-SLAPPstep, a court 'does not weigh the credibility or comparative probative strength of competingevidence... [i]t 'accepts the plaintiff's evidence as true, and evaluates the defendant's showing only todetermine if it defeats the plaintiff's claim as a matter of law... [w]e resolve conflicts and inferences inthe record in favor of plaintiff"].)In its discovery responses, WLG stated that Weingarten reviewed the account and confirmed that itwas within the statute of limitations as part of “the process which resulted in [the collectionscomplaint] being drafted, filed, and served on” Walker. Although the court finds this to be a closecase, plaintiff’s evidence, contrasted with Pipia’s declaration statements, creates a factual disputeregarding Weingarten’s personal involvement in collecting the debt in this case and is sufficient todefeat Weingarten’s anti-SLAPP motion.ConclusionPlaintiff has met the “minimal merit” threshold to defeat Weingarten’s anti-SLAPP motion. As such,the motion is denied.

Document

Berkshire Bank v. Katherine M. Gray a/k/a Katherine M. Sandford

Aug 02, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |EF2024-1693

Document

Lvnv Funding Llc v. Dean Curtis aka Dean W Curtis

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |EF2024-1695

Document

Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Elizabeth M Schwartz

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1702

Document

Td Bank Usa, N.A. v. Tiffany M Jones

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1698

Document

Capital One, N.A. v. David W Mather Jr

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1701

Document

Td Bank Usa, N.A. v. Kelly Niles

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1700

Document

Td Bank Usa, N.A. v. Lise Yacco

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |EF2024-1699

Document

Midland Credit Management, Inc. v. Sorith Song

Aug 05, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |EF2024-1697