PABLO BRAVO VS BRAVO

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME PABLO BRAVO VS MOTION TO SET ASIDE ON 2ND

BRAVO AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: The motion to set aside default is granted. Moving Party is given 15 days to file a responsive pleading, including any cross complaint.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CROSS-DEFENDANT RICHARD STAITON'S AND PACIFIC LENDING CVRI2301594 BENT VS GOGER TRUST #2 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Tentative Ruling:

Goger provides sufficient evidence to support a triable issue of material fact as to the first and third causes of action. However, she did not meet her burden as to the second cause of action. In her opposition, she asked for a continuance. This motion was continued to allow compliance with a prior discovery ruling and for supplemental briefs to be filed based on the new evidence provided. Supplemental briefing was filed on 5/18/26 and 5/28/26.

In Goger’s supplemental opposition, she appears unhappy with Staiton’s response to the court ordered production. However, she does not seek another continuance. For purposes of opposition, she concedes that a loan was made by Staiton as trustee for Pacific Lending Trust #2. She argues that the loan is void under California’s Financing Law because Staiton or Pacific Lending Trust #2 were required to have broker or lending licenses. She asserts that if the California Financing Law is willfully violated, the loan is void. She contends that it is possible that the loan falls under this law and that Staiton’s conduct was willful. She also argues that it is likely at trial that she will be able to provide evidence to establish that Bent likely returned the $40,000 to Staiton. She argues there is little documentation to support the loan and it’s likely that Staiton had been working for Bent.

In supplemental reply, Staiton reasserts the validity of his arguments regarding his first and third causes of action. He argues that Goger has failed to provide any authority to support her arguments regarding the second cause of action.

The motion for summary adjudication is granted as to the second cause of action. As addressed below, Staiton met his initial burden. Goger argues that this motion should be denied to the second cause of action because under Financial Code § 22750(b), “[i]f any provision of this division is willfully violated in the making or collection of a loan, whether by a licensee or by an unlicensed person subject to this division, the contract of loan is void, and no person has any right to collect or receive any principal, charges, or recompense in connection with the transaction.” Goger has failed to cite to any authority that she has the ability to void the loan or that the fact that you could void