U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs VENTRESS, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV001346: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs VENTRESS, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiff’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 11/18/2025, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving plaintiff is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Plaintiff U.S. Bank’s (“Bank”) motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, summary adjudication as against defendant Ventress is ruled upon as follows.

Moving counsel again failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(g), requiring a single volume of evidence (including declarations) with a table of contents when the evidence exceeds 25 pages.

The moving declaration again fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(1) and (3)-(4).

Opposing counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 2.111(3) and Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

The Court finds that defendant’s opposition includes neither a separate statement nor any purported evidence claimed to show a triable issue of material fact despite Code of Civil Procedure §437c’s provisions stating that the “[f]ailure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(b)(3)) and that a defendant opposing summary judgment/adjudication “shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001346: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs VENTRESS, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(1)).

To the extent the opposition purports to assert objections to the evidence submitted by plaintiff, defendant failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1354, requiring objections to evidence not only to be set forth in a separate document but also to quote or set forth the objectionable material (so the Court need not expend its finite resources searching for the material to which the objections are directed to in order to rule on such objections).

Factual Background

This litigation arises out of a credit card account which defendant Ventress obtained but then later failed to make payments on pursuant to the account’s terms and conditions. The complaint asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract, with the principal amount due and owing on the account alleged to be over $11,346. Defendant Ventress through her counsel filed on 3/10/2025 a general denial which includes a multitude of affirmative defenses. No trial date has been set.

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment/adjudication on the grounds that defendant is in default on the account and has no defense to the complaint, there is no triable issue of material fact and plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment/adjudication as a matter of law.

Defendant Ventress has filed an opposition which consists solely of a memorandum of points & authorities which first argues that summary judgment/adjudication is not appropriate in this case because “there are multiple triable issues surrounding the nature and existence of the alleged contract, the terms of said contract, the enforceability of said terms, and the amount of the alleged damages.” (Opp., p.1:18- 21.) The opposition also suggests there are concerns over “the propriety of the Plaintiff’s supporting declaration which contains inadmissible hearsay, conclusions of law, and inconsistent facts by a 'Litigation Support Coordinator' who lacks personal knowledge of the matters stated therein” and whether “the attached documents have been properly certified as true and admissible as a business record exception to the hearsay rule.” (Id., at p.1:23-p.2:1.)

Defendant also questions “whether the Plaintiff has proved compliance with Regulation Z of the Truth and Lending Act (TILA)[,] partly due to the fact that Plaintiff changed the interest rate without first giving Defendant the proper notice ” and “[a]ny failure to comply with this act [sic] mandates an offset of the amount owed due to Plaintiff.” (Id., at p.2:1-5.)

As noted above, defendant’s opposition includes neither a separate statement nor any purported evidence claimed to show a triable issue of material fact despite Code of Civil Procedure §437c’s provisions stating that the “[f]ailure to comply with this requirement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001346: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs VENTRESS, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(b)(3)) and that a defendant opposing summary judgment/adjudication “shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(1)).

Additionally, to the extent the opposition purports to assert objections to the evidence submitted by plaintiff, defendant has failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1354, requiring objections to evidence not only to be set forth in a separate document but also to quote or set forth the objectionable.

Standards for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication, the Court engages in a threestep process. First, the issues framed by the pleadings must be identified since the pleadings themselves define the scope of what may be addressed via a motion for summary judgment/adjudication (FPI Development Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382) and the evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to such a motion may not create triable issues beyond the scope of the pleadings, nor are they a substitute for filing amended pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its initial burden of production. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(1) explains that a plaintiff or crosscomplainant moving for summary judgment/adjudication “[meets] 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” and only when “the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden” does the burden shift to the defendant or cross-defendant “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” A party opposing summary judgment/adjudication has no evidentiary burden unless the moving party has first met his/her initial burden. (Binder v.

Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840; see also Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1151-1152; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085-1086.)

Only where the moving party makes the requisite initial showing does a court need to examine the opposition papers to determine if the latter demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment/adjudication. (Salazar

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001346: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs VENTRESS, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376; Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) The opposing party must present admissible evidence and may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleading. (Id.) In ruling on the motion, a court must construe the evidence of the opposing party liberally and that of the moving party strictly, resolving any doubts in the opposing party’s favor. (Miller v. Bechtel Corp. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 868, 874; Cortez v. Vogt (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 917, 925-926; see also, Salazar v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376; Brown v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.)

While a summary adjudication motion is treated largely the same as one for summary judgment, there are a few important differences. One of these differences is found in CRC Rule 3.1350(b), which mandates that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Another difference is that summary adjudication cannot be granted unless it “completely disposes” of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1) provides in its entirety:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for [punitive] damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for [punitive] damages, or an issue of duty. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Finally, before turning to the specific issues raised by this motion, the Court reminds the parties of the “Golden Rule” of summary judgment/adjudication: “If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (See, Zimmerman, Rosenfeld v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 (italics in original).) Moreover, according to Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, a moving party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact’s “materiality,” whether intended or not, and if there is a triable dispute relating to any one of these facts, the motion must be denied. (Nazir, at 252 (citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1); see also, Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506.)

That said, the Court now turns to the specific contentions advanced in support of and opposition to this motion for summary judgment/adjudication.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001346: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs VENTRESS, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

Objections to Evidence

As noted above, defendant Ventress did not file any written objections to evidence in conformity with the express requirements of CRC Rule 3.1354. To the extent defendant’s points & authorities in opposition purports to assert objections to evidence proffered by plaintiff as support for summary judgment/adjudication, such purported objections to evidence are overruled because they fail to comply with the express requirements of CRC Rule 3.1354, requiring objections to evidence not only be set forth in a separate document but also to quote or set forth the objectionable material (so the Court need not expend its finite resources searching for the material to which the objections are directed to in order to rule on such objections).

Moreover, even if the Court were to consider defendant’s purported objections to the Leonard Declaration filed in support of this motion, these purported objections to evidence would be overruled insofar as this declaration provides sufficient, admissible factual foundation for the assertions therein and also to demonstrate that the exhibits attached thereto fall within the established “business records exception” to the hearsay rule. (See, e.g., Evid. Code §1271.)

Discussion

The Court finds that plaintiff Bank has satisfied its initial burden under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(1) relative to its breach of contract cause of action against defendant Ventress. Thus, plaintiff Bank has successfully shifted to defendant Ventress the burden to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of at least one triable issue of material fact with respect to the sole cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Since she did not include with her opposition to this motion any declaration or other purported evidence, defendant Ventress has necessarily failed to satisfy her burden of producing admissible evidence which competently demonstrates the existence of at least one triable issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment/adjudication on the grounds advanced in the moving papers. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff Bank is entitled to summary judgment/adjudication against defendant Ventress as prayed in the moving papers.

Additionally, while not necessary to the disposition of this motion, that Court reiterates that defendant’s opposition includes no a separate statement even though Code of Civil Procedure §437c not only mandates that a separate statement be filed in support of any opposition but also that the “[f]ailure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001346: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs VENTRESS, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(b)(3).) On this basis as well, this Court finds that that plaintiff Bank is entitled to summary judgment/adjudication against defendant Ventress as prayed in the moving papers.

Disposition

Because plaintiff Bank carried its initial burden of production under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(1) and because defendant Ventress failed not only to produce evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment/adjudication on plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action against her but also to file a separate statement in support of her opposition, plaintiff Bank’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication as against defendant Ventress shall be GRANTED.

Having received no objection thereto, the Court will sign the proposed order granting summary judgment/adjudication which was submitted with the moving papers.

However, the Court declines to sign the proposed judgment submitted with the moving papers since (1) it includes an award of costs in the amount of $942.61 “pursuant to a memorandum of costs;” (2) the Memorandum of Costs which plaintiff Bank filed on 10/15/2025 is premature because no judgment has yet been entered; and (3) plaintiff Bank is not entitled to an award of costs until the time for defendant to challenge the costs claimed has expired. Plaintiff Bank to submit a revised proposed judgment consistent with the foregoing.

The Memorandum of Costs filed on 10/15/2025 is hereby STRICKEN as premature because no judgment in plaintiff Bank’s favor has yet been entered.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)