Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV01384, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV01384, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Goldman Sachs Bank USA’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as moot.

The Complaint does include Doe Defendants, so any unnamed Doe Defendants in this action are DISMISSED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five days.

On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff Goldman Sachs Bank USA (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Rowena Larowa (Defendant) for common counts in connection with a loan.

On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for summary adjudication. Defendant did not oppose the motion. On August 1, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to August 24, 2023, in part due to Defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing. After this action had been transferred to Department 6 in West Covina, the hearing on the motion was continued again to September 19, 2023. Defendant still did not oppose the motion.

On September 19, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to October 19, 2023, and directed Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing and a revised separate statement. On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief and revised separate statement.[1] Defendant still did not oppose the motion.

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication in Plaintiff’s favor for its sole common counts claim against Defendant.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “[A] plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).)”

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

“’A book account may be deemed to furnish the foundation for a suit in assumpsit… only when it contains a statement of the debits and credits of the transactions involved completely enough to supply evidence from which it can be reasonable determined what amount is due to the claimant.’… ‘The term ‘account,’ as it is used in the statute, clearly requires the recording of sufficient information regarding the transaction involved in the suit, from which the debits and credits of the respective parties may be determined, so as to permit the striking of a balance to ascertain what sum, if any, is due to the claimant.’” (Robin v. Smith (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 288, 291) [internal citations omitted].

1. “Upon ROWENA LAROWA ’s request, Plaintiff established an Account in the name of ROWENA LAROWA with an account numbered XXXXXXXX7563.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ["UMF"], UMF 1.)

2. “The account records also show that ROWENA LAROWA is the Account Holder on the Personal Loan account ending in 7563.” (UMF 2.)

3. “The terms and conditions of ROWENA LAROWA ’s Personal Loan Account are set forth in the Loan Agreement.” (UMF 3.)

4. “The original Loan Agreement has been communicated to the Account Holder, and the current terms and conditions is attached to Plaintiff’s declaration as Exhibit A.” (UMF 4.)

5. “By signing the Loan Agreement Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. The Account funds were disbursed to the Defendant’s designated bank account, sent by check or to a third party designee as requested by the Defendants.” (UMF 5.)

6. “As the Account Holder on the account, ROWENA LAROWA agreed to be individually liable for the amount on the account.” (UMF 6.)

7. “Plaintiff’s business records are computerized. Plaintiff maintains these records in the ordinary course of its business, it is the ordinary course of business to keep such records, and the records are updated with information on events (such as the initial funding of the loan and payments on the Account). Also, the records are updated with information on events by individuals with personal knowledge of those events or by automated processes that track such events at or near the time that the events occur.” (UMF 7.)

8. “Per the terms of the Loan Agreement, ROWENA LAROWA was responsible for notifying GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA of a change in contact information.” (UMF 8.)

9. “Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, so long as there was a balance on Defendant’s account, Defendant was required to make a monthly payment to GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA.” (UMF 9.)

10. “ROWENA LAROWA has failed to make the regular payments on the account. Accordingly, ROWENA LAROWA is in default and the entire balance of $25,681.07 is now due and owing.” (UMF 10.)

After reviewing all of the evidence, the Court finds Plaintiff has met its moving burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(l) of supporting all elements of its common counts cause of action. (See UMF Nos. 1-10, and evidence cited therein; CCP § 337a [elements of book account].) Plaintiff has presented evidence that Defendant opened an account with Plaintiff, that Plaintiff lent Defendant $25,000 under that account, and that Defendant only made a few payments before defaulting. (UMF 1-7, 9; Knudtson Decl., Exs. A, B.) Plaintiff has also introduced evidence that Defendant owes Plaintiff $25,681.07 on the book account. (UMF 10; Knudtson Decl., Ex. C.) The burden now shifts to Defendant to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

Defendant has failed to oppose the motion and thereby has failed to present any evidence to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. Accordingly, the Court finds there is no triable issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as moot.

The Complaint does include Doe Defendants, so any unnamed Doe Defendants in this action are DISMISSED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five days.

[1] The Court finds the supplemental brief and revised separate statement resolve the Court’s concerns expressed in its September 19, 2023 order. As such, the Court need not address those issues herein.