ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA

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 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

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion of Plaintiff Arora Solutions, LLC (“Plaintiff”) for summary judgment is unopposed and ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted for the limited purposes proper for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Background

This is a collections case. On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed its complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant in pro per Matt De Lima (“Defendant”). As alleged, this action arises out of loan agreement (the “Agreement”) between Plaintiff and Defendant, with a principal amount of $124,864.88, and which included an interest rate of 7% per annum from March 8, 2022. (Compl., Exh. A.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed, refused, and continues to fail and refuse to pay the amounts owed under the Agreement. (Id., at p. 3.) On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed his answer.

On April 17, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem matters admitted as to Plaintiff’s requests for admission, set one. (RJN, No. 1; see also 4/17/25 Order.) The Court notes that there is no order in the Register of Actions or presented in connection with this motion which includes a finding that Defendant “served, before the hearing on the motion [for deemed admissions], a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) to avoid deemed admissions.

A trial date is presently set in this matter for January 27, 2026.

Legal Standard

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

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 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 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.)

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, 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 v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252, citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1.)

That said, the Court now turns to the specific contentions advanced in connection with this motion for summary judgment.

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Here, Plaintiff contends the elements for its causes of action for breach of contract and common counts are undisputed. (See Mov. P&A, p. 4:4-18, citing D’Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 800; Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that there are no triable issues of material fact as to Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant, and that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

In support, Plaintiff cites Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) Nos. 1-5. Although the Notice of Motion does not indicate summary adjudication is sought as to any individual cause of action, the moving separate statement appears to set forth separate “issues” which generally correspond to the causes of action alleged in the complaint. To the extent this motion may seek summary adjudication of individual causes of action, moving counsel failed to comply with California Rules of Court rules 3.1350(b) and (h), requiring that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Accordingly, the Court treats this motion as seeking summary judgment only.

Here, Plaintiff proffers the following UMFs:  Plaintiff made a loan to Defendant in the principal amount of $124,864.88. (UMF 1.)  Defendant defaulted on his obligations to Plaintiff by failing to pay the amounts due and owing to Plaintiff. (UMF 2.)  Defendant owed Plaintiff the sum of $140,118.92, through December 4, 2024. (UMF 3.)  As of June 25, 2025, the outstanding balance due, owing and unpaid by Defendant to Plaintiff is $153,720.64. (UMF 4.)  Interest continues to accrue on the principal amount of $124,864.88, owed by Defendant to Plaintiff at the daily rate of $24.95. (UMF 5.)

The Court notes that all of the UMFs are based, at least in part, on Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted by Court Order. As stated, on April 17, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted, and Defendant’s admissions have not been subsequently set aside by the Court as referenced earlier. A deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)

Accordingly, the evidence proffered with the moving papers is sufficient to establish (1) the existence of an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant; (2) Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff the outstanding balance due; and (3) Plaintiff is currently owed $153,720.64.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff has satisfied its initial burden under Code of Civil Procedure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

§437c(p)(1) and has thereby shifted to Defendant the burden to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of at least one triable issue of material fact. To be sure, the last sentence of §437c(p)(1) clarifies that a defendant “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.” (Underline added for emphasis.)

As noted above, the Court’s records reflect no opposition to this motion has been filed by Defendant. Because Defendant has presented no evidence, they have necessarily failed to meet their own burden of production under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(1). By failing to offer any evidence in opposition to the present motion, Defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (See generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326- 327; Planned Parenthood v. City of Santa Maria (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 685, 690.)

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Defendant must be and hereby is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall prepare a formal order complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(g) and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.