By EBF Holdings, LLC dba Everest Business Funding for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
(41) Tentative Ruling
Re: EBF Holdings, LLC v. Sulakhan Singh Superior Court Case No. 24CECG05085
Hearing Date: June 30, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motion: By EBF Holdings, LLC dba Everest Business Funding for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
Tentative Ruling:
To deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and the alternative motion for summary adjudication, without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.)
Explanation:
On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff, EBF Holdings, LLC dba Everest Holdings, LLC, (Plaintiff or EBF) filed the operative complaint against Defendant North East Business Management, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant Company) and its guarantor, defendant Sulakhan Singh, an individual (Defendant Guarantor), containing six causes of action against both named defendants except as noted: (1) breach of Revenue Based Financing Agreement (Purchase Agreement - against Defendant Company only); (2) fraud; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) violation of unfair competition law; (5) claim and delivery; and (6) breach of guaranty (against Defendant Guarantor only).
Defendant Guarantor answered the complaint, in propria persona, on behalf of both Defendant Guarantor and Defendant Company. The court granted Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant Company's answer because a self-represented litigant cannot represent a corporation. Plaintiff then requested entry of Defendant Company's default, which was entered on May 27, 2025. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication.
Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy the Initial Burden of Persuasion and Production
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c provides that summary judgment "shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A plaintiff may move for summary judgment when the plaintiff contends there is no defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A plaintiff moving for summary judgment is not required to disprove each defense asserted by the defendant in addition to proving each element of the plaintiff's own cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853 [California law "no longer requires a plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of [plaintiff's] own cause of action"] (Aguilar).) Thus, a defendant cannot rely upon the allegations or denials of its own pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead must set forth specific facts. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The trial court must "carefully scrutinize the moving party's papers and resolve all doubts regarding the existence of material, triable issues of fact in favor of the party opposing the motion." (Connelly v. County of Fresno (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.)
Summary Judgment
A motion for summary judgment is generally directed toward an entire action or pleading. (Code of Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (a).) By comparison “[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action ....” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) If a moving party fails to meet its initial burden, the trial court should stop its analysis and deny the motion for summary judgment. (See Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 833, 846 [if defendant fails to address issue raised in complaint, it fails to meet its initial burden and therefore fails to shift burden to opposing plaintiff].)
Here, the complaint includes a fifth cause of action for claim and delivery. Plaintiff fails to address the fifth cause of action in its moving papers. Of course, Plaintiff may dismiss the claim and delivery cause of action, but the court is unable to locate confirmation that Plaintiff has done so before filing its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the court denies the motion for summary judgment.
Summary Adjudication
Plaintiff moves, in the alternative, for summary adjudication of the second through fourth and the sixth causes of action. In its separate statement, Plaintiff relies on the same set of 18 facts for each cause of action it challenges. Several of Plaintiff's facts lack evidentiary support.
For example, in its separate statement, Plaintiff states Defendant Company's agent and guarantor, Defendant Littleton executed the Purchase Agreement. (Fact No. 1.) Plaintiff's supporting evidence fails to mention a "Defendant Littleton." In Fact No. 3, Plaintiff states the Purchase Agreement was for the sale of $60,000 of Defendant Company's future accounts receivable for the purchase price of $40,000. Plaintiff's supporting evidence lists the future accounts receivable amount as $57,200. (Goldberg decl., ex. 3, request for admission (RFA) 8 [MSJ 27].) Fact No. 7 includes a statement that Defendant Guarantor never intended to pay the $60,000. Fact No. 7 is not supported by the cited RFA 19, which provides, Defendant Guarantor "never intended for EBF to collect the $57,200.00 in receivables."
Fact No. 5 states, "Defendant Guarantor failed to make Defendant Company's accounts receivable available to Plaintiff under the Purchase Agreement on 11
September 8, 2022." To support Fact No. 5, Plaintiff cites an irrelevant request for admission (RFA 10), which provides, "Admit that YOU [Defendant Guarantor] caused payments to EBF to stop from [Defendant Company's] bank account preventing EBF from debiting [Defendant Company's] account under the Purchase Agreement." Had Plaintiff intended to cite RFA 9, the evidence still fails to support a breach that occurred on September 8, 2022. (RFA 9 provides, "Admit that [Defendant Company] stopped making payments under the Purchase Agreement on or about July 5, 2024.") In short, Plaintiff's own evidence contradicts several of its facts. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to meet its initial burden of production and persuasion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Plaintiff fails to meet its burden of production and persuasion to prevail on its motion for summary judgment or its alternative motion for summary adjudication. Therefore, the court denies Plaintiff's alternative motions, without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a successive motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. If Plaintiff elects to do so, the court directs Plaintiff to lodge a proposed order with its reply papers.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 06/29/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
12