Opportunity Financial, Llc V. Evan Litke

Case Number: 23SMCV01369 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication of Claims is GRANTED in the amount of $248,672.71. Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute. Costs shall be determined by statute. Attorney fees shall be determined pursuant to a noticed motion. Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to give notice. REASONING Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment or adjudication in its favor and against Defendants Sunset Art LLC (Sunset Art), Jared Najjar, and Paul C Valmorbida. No defendant has filed an opposition to Chases motion. While the moving party generally bears the initial burden of proof on its motion, and lack of opposition will not automatically entitle the moving party to prevail on its motion, a partys failure to file an opposition can be considered a concession that the motion is meritorious. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary 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. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) 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 defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted. (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467 (Avivi).) 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.) [T]he court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection) . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Analysis Chase alleges that on March 12, 2015, Sunset Art entered into a borrowing relationship with Chase by executing a Line of Credit Note and Credit Agreement in the amount of $250,000.00. (Compl. ¶ 7, Ex. A.) On the same date, Najjar executed a Continuing Guaranty (the Najjar guaranty), guaranteeing repayment of the contract (Compl. ¶ 8, Ex. B), and Valmorbida also executed a Continuing Guaranty (the Valmorbida guaranty), guaranteeing repayment of the contract (Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. C). Plaintiff alleges Sunset Art has defaulted under the terms of the contract such that there is now due and owing to Chase $247,778.91, plus late fees and costs, and Defendants Najjar and Valmorbida have failed to cure Sunset Arts default pursuant to their guarantees such that they are also in default under the guarantees. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Chase alleges causes of action for breach of express contract, money lent, and account stated. It voluntarily dismissed its money lent and account stated claims on December 15, 2023. To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, Chase must be able to establish (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendants breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Chase provides evidence that on March 13, 2015, Sunset Art entered into a borrowing relationship with Chase by executing a Line of Credit Note and Credit Agreement in the amount of $250,000.00. (Chases UMF No. 1.) On the same date, Najjar executed the Najjar guaranty, and Valmorbida executed the Valmorbida guaranty. (Chases UMF Nos. 2-3.) Sunset Art has failed to pay under the terms of the contract, has defaulted, and there is now due and owing to Chase $247,778.91, plus late fees and costs of $893.80 for a total of $248,672.71. (Chases UMF No. 5.) Defendants Najjar and Valmorbida have failed to cure Sunset Arts default pursuant to their guarantees such that they are also in default under the guarantees. (Chases UMF Nos. 6-7.) This evidence allows Chase to meet its burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact as to its claims for breach of express contract. While the date of the contracts is different than that alleged in the complaint, the documents attached to the complaint showed an execution date of March 13, 2015, and it is axiomatic that exhibits control when there is a conflict between a complaints allegations and exhibits attached to the complaint. (Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 697, 712, fn. 13.) No defendant has opposed the present motion, thereby failing to establish that a triable issue of material fact exists as to Chases claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication of Claims is GRANTED in the amount of $248,672.71. Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute. Costs shall be determined by statute. Attorney fees shall be determined pursuant to a noticed motion.

Case Number: 22AHCV00898 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT DIMERCO EXPRESS USA CORP. , Plaintiff(s), vs. CONCORD DISPLAYS, LLC, et al. , Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 22AHCV00898 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. July 12 , 2024 ) Plaintiff Dimerco Express USA Corp. (Plaintiff) requests a default judgment against defendant Concord Displays, LLC (Defendant) in the amount of $24,630.97. On May 23, 2042, Plaintiff filed a declaration of counsel attaching a settlement agreement which provides for the entry of a stipulated judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. In light of this agreement, Plaintiffs attempt to secure a default judgment is procedurally incorrect. Plaintiff should be moving for entry of a judgment pursuant to stipulation and submit a proposed judgment that reflects its stipulated nature. Accordingly, the hearing on the default prove-up is vacated and the Court sets an OSC re: Dismissal for _____________ in order to allow Plaintiff time to file a noticed motion. Dated this 12th day of July , 2024 William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 15. PLAINTIFF VANESA O'HANLON's Application And Hearing For Right To Attach Order And Writ Of Attachment. Continued to July 11, 2024, on the court's motion. =(302/RBU)

Case Number: 22VECV01711 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: T 22VECV01711 ODK v Ultimate Home Motion to withdraw as counsel for Ultimate Home Mortgage Corp is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On May 29, 2024, the court continued this motion and ordered moving party to give notice to Ultimate Home Mortgage that its attorney is seeking to withdraw from the case, the court is continuing the hearing on the motion to withdraw to 7/12/2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. T and that if Ultimate Home Mortgage does not have a new attorney by that date, then the court will allow counsel to withdraw and will strike its answer and enter default against Ultimate Home Mortgage for being a corporation with an attorney. Moving party failed to do so. The court is not going to continue the matter any further. The motion is denied without prejudice.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 16. PLAINTIFF VANESA O'HANLON's Application And Hearing For Right To Attach Order And Writ Of Attachment. "Plaintiff's application for right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of attachment" is denied. This action regards a series of oral loans - several involving credit cards - that plaintiff allegedly made to defendant and he did not fully re-pay. The motion is denied for two principal reasons. First, the amount of plaintiff's claims is not "fixed or readily ascertainable." (CCP 483.010(a).) For example, plaintiff concedes she is "unable to locate my credit card statements to correctly charge" defendant. (O'Hanlon Dec. 3:1-3.) Second, plaintiff has not "established the probable validity" of her claims. (CCP 484.090(a)(2).) For example, plaintiff concedes the loans - all oral - began "in April 2017," raising serious statute-of-limitations issues. (O'Hanlon Dec. 1:25; CCP 339.) The court does not rely on defendant's untimely opposition for the above, but rather plaintiff's own declaration. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript msay be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)

Case Number: 23STCP04480 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 51 Tentative Ruling Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51 HEARING DATE: July 11, 2024 CASE NAME: Ace Funding Source LLC v. Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports, et al. CASE NO .: 23STCP04480 MOTION TO AMEND SISTER STATE JUDGMENT DUE TO CLERICAL ERROR UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 473(d) MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 8, 2024 REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An Order amending the sister state judgment entered against Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; Flyby Auto Transport LLC; and Jonathan Azizi. TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC (Plaintiff) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment (Application) against Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Overight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; and Jonathan Azizi (Defendants). On December 12, 2023, the Clerk entered judgment. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. On May 13, 2024, the court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to amend. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration in support of its motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. LEGAL STANDARD: Courts have inherent powers to correct judgments by a nunc pro tunc order where there has been a clerical error by clerk or by the judge himself, or where some provision of, or omission from, order or judgment was due to inadvertence, or mistake of court. ( Lane v. Superior Court of Siskiyou County (1950) 98 Cal App 2d 165, 219; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) This includes clerical errors when made by an attorney who drafts the judgment. ( See In re Marriage of Kaufman (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.) However, while a trial court may correct clerical errors and misprisions in a judgment, it cannot amend a judgment once entered, if the error to be corrected is a judicial one, for instance if it embodies an intentional action of the court even though legally erroneous. ( Kamper v. Mark Hopkins, Inc. (1947) 78 Cal App 2d 885.) ANALYSIS : Plaintiff contends that Defendants Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport, Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight, and Flyby Auto Transport LLC were not added to the courts docket due to a clerical error. Plaintiff further contends that these Defendants were listed in the Sister-State Judgment packet documents. Plaintiff seeks to have these Defendants added to the docket. Here, the court agrees there is a clerical error. The Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment entered on December 12, 2023 identify all Defendants. However, the courts docket only includes Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports and Jonathan Azizi. While Plaintiff does not seek revision of the documents themselves, Plaintiffs request is still proper because it is clearly a clerical error that the docket does not accurately reflect the entered Judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 183(3).) Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to amend. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court

TRUIST BANK VS. STOCK, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0203124 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on May 28, 2024 to Plaintiff Truist Bank and counsel, Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Chris Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) and Local Rule of Court 3.03 and failure to timely seek default on Defendant Bright Nichols Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(g). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). Local Rule 3.03 mandates that Plaintiff serve Defendant with Local Form LF-CIV-100 and file a proof of service within the same timeframe. The Complaint in this matter was filed on September 1, 2023 and no proof of service has been filed for defendant Chris Stock. Plaintiff did not address defendant Chris Stock in the written response to the Order to Show Cause. CRC 3.110(g) requires Plaintiff to file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service of the responsive pleading has elapsed. Defendant Bright Nichols Stock was served on October 7, 2023. The time for filing a responsive pleading expired November 6, 2023. No extension was requested or granted. No default was requested. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Declaration that asserts that a default packet “is pending to be drafted.” No explanation is given for the noncompliance with CRC 3.110. No default judgment has been requested. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint and LF-CIV-100, failure to timely seek default judgment, and failure to timely prosecute. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of service. ****************************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings ******************************************************************************************

Case Number: 23STCP00079 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 51 Tentative Ruling Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51 HEARING DATE: July 15, 2024 CASE NAME: Pearl Beta Funding, LLC v. Lonewolf Insurance Services, et al. CASE NO .: 23STCP00079 MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY : Judgment Debtors Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and Tatanisha Leer [1] RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Pearl Beta Funding, LLC REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An Order setting aside the amended judgment. TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion for Order Setting Aside/Vacating Judgment is CONTINUED to September 3, 2024. The parties shall submit additional briefing consistent with the requirements of CCP § 1005(b). STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Pearl Beta Funding, LLC (Judgment Creditor) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment naming Judgment Debtors Lonewolf Insurance Services, Inc., El Dorado Hills Insurance Solutions Inc., Golden Foothill Insurance Services LLC, The Genesis LS Fund LLC, Life Shares LLC, KTL Holdings Inc., and Stefan Joseph Leer (Judgment Debtors). On January 12, 2023, Judgment on Sister-State Judgment was entered by the clerk. On July 14, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale for property located at 30402 Marbella Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 owned by Judgment Debtor Stefan Joseph Leer. On July 14, 2023, Judgment Creditor obtained a Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) against all Judgment Debtors and filed a Memorandum of Costs after Judgment. On September 26, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor Stefan Joseph Leer. On September 27, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Third Person Tatanish L. Leer which was granted. On January 17, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed a Return to Court Writ of Execution. On February 13, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed a instant Motion to Amend Judgment pursuant to CCP § 187 which the court GRANTED as to Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and DENIED as to Tatanisha Leer. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of entry of the courts order on the Motion to Amend Judgment. On May 21, 2024, Judgment Debtor Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and Non-Party Tatanisha Leer (Moving Parties) filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. As of July 9, 2024, Moving Parties did not file a reply. LEGAL STANDARD: Set Aside CCP §¿473 The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect&¿ [The application]¿shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.¿ (CCP¿§¿473(b).) Courts must grant relief when the attorneys inexcusable neglect results in the dismissal. ( Ibid. ) Otherwise, relief under this section is discretionary. ( Ibid. ) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), provides that the Court may, on motion of either party after notice set aside any void judgment or order. Request for Judicial Notice The court grants Judgment Creditors request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A through J. (Evid. Code § 452(c), (h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. ( Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿¿ ANALYSIS : Moving Parties contend the judgment should be set aside because the amount fails to credit amounts of the judgment already paid and the motion to amend the judgment was not properly served. Plaintiff argues Moving Parties have not demonstrated, or even suggested, prejudice. As a threshold matter, CCP §¿473 does not afford the relief Moving Parties seek. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 844 [noting that a CCP § 473.5 motion is a procedural remedy to set aside a default or default judgment, not a sister state judgment.]) The more applicable statute is CCP § 1710.40 which provides, in pertinent part: ( a) A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment, including the ground that the amount of interest accrued on the sister state judgment and included in the judgment entered pursuant to this chapter is incorrect. (b) Not later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment pursuant to¿ Section 1710.30 , proof of which has been made in the manner provided by Article 5 (commencing with¿ Section 417.10 ) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2, the judgment debtor, on written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion to vacate the judgment under this section. Service, not actual notice, triggers the 30-day limit for the judgment debtor to make a motion to vacate the judgment so long as the judgment debtor was effectively served with process in the sister state action. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC, supra, at p. 838.) However, service of the notice of entry of judgment must be done in the manner provided for service of summons and shall . . . inform the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 30 days within which to make a motion to vacate the judgment. ( Ibid. ) Here, Plaintiff did not adequately serve notice of entry of the amended judgment on the Wyoming LLC. [2] First, Plaintiff effected service via U.S. Mail only. (Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment, Proof of Service.) This is not one of the proscribed methods for service of summons. (CCP § 415.10(a) [personal delivery], § 415.20 [substitute service], or § 415.30 (a) [service by mail with a notice and acknowledgment of receipt].) Second, the notice does not inform the judgment debtor that they have 30 days within which to make the instant motion. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC, supra, at p. 838.) Accordingly, the court CONTINUES the instant motion to allow the parties the opportunity to provide further briefing. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion for Order Setting Aside/Vacating Judgment is CONTINUED to September 3, 2024. The parties shall submit additional briefing consistent with the requirements of CCP § 1005(b). Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court [1] Contrary to Moving Parties assertion, Tatanisha Leer is not a judgment debtor. (Order Granting in Part and Denying in Party Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment.) [2] As such, that Moving Parties filed this motion 56-days after service of the notice of entry of judgment is inconsequential. It is also questionable whether Plaintiff properly served the remaining named Defendants. While they were personally served with the original judgment on February 24, 2023, the proof of service for the notice of amended judgment is also via U.S. Mail only. Conversely, the court also notes that Moving Parties proof of service for the instant motion may be defective, too, since it is not served on the remaining Defendants.