WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND

24CV011961: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

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

24CV011961: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

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:

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiff’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 11/13/2024, 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. ***

The (amended) notice of hearing/motion filed on 12/30/2025 does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53/54. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing, along with the correct address for Dept. 53/54. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

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.

Moving counsel again failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(d)(3), requiring all citations to supporting evidence include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers, rather than by mere paragraph numbers.

Moving counsel again failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

All moving papers other than the original Notice of Motion fail to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(1).

To the extent this motion may have intended to seek summary adjudication of individual causes of action, moving counsel again failed to comply with CRC Rule 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.

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank’s (second) motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand is ruled on as follows.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011961: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Factual Background

According to the complaint filed on 6/18/2024, this litigation arises out of plaintiff’s issuance of a credit card to defendant Chand. It is alleged that defendant received and used the card but has subsequently defaulted and refused to bring the account current, owing roughly $14,300 to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts six separate causes of action against defendant Chand for (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of contract (implied in fact), (3) money lent, (4) money paid, (5) open book account, and (6) account stated.

On 7/26//2024, defendant Chand’s attorney filed an answer to the complaint which included a general denial and a number of affirmative defenses.

Notably, on 11/12/2024, plaintiff Bank brought an initial motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand and this prior motion for summary judgment was “denied in its entirety” on 3/26/2025. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff Bank filed this second motion for summary judgment on 7/14/2025 and noticed it for hearing on 12/23/2025. By Minute Order dated 11/6/2025, the hearing on this second motion for summary judgment was on the Court’s own motion continued to 1/29/2026.

Moving Papers. Plaintiff now moves a second time for summary judgment against defendant Chand on the grounds that “there is no triable issue of material fact, or issue of liability, and therefore the moving party is entitled to summary judgment.” (7/14/2025 Not. of Mot., p.2:1-3.) However, plaintiff Bank actually seeks summary judgment on just two of the six causes of actions alleged in the complaint: The first and second causes of action for “breach of written contract” and “breach of contract (implied in fact),” respectively. (Id., at p.1:25-28.)

Curiously, in support of this motion for summary judgment, plaintiff Bank has filed a separate statement which sets forth a single “issue,” “The First Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract,” under which is cited Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) Nos. 1-14. Importantly for the disposition of this motion, the 7/14/2025 Notice of Motion does not indicate summary adjudication is in the alternative sought as to any individual cause of action and the moving separate statement by its own terms purports to address only the first cause of action for breach of written contract, with no mention of or reference to either the second cause of action for “breach of contract (implied in fact)” or the four other causes of action alleged in the complaint against defendant Chand for money lent, money paid, open book account, and/or account stated.

Opposition. No opposition from defendant currently appears in the Court’s records.

Standards for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011961: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

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 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 v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011961: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

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 connection with this motion for summary judgment.

Objections to Evidence

The Court finds no written objections to evidence.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment is Procedurally Improper. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(a)(4) provides in pertinent part:

A party shall not bring more than one motion for summary judgment against an adverse party to the action or proceeding. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Importantly, the prohibition set forth in §437c(a)(4) does not make any exception based upon the reasons why a party’s prior motion for summary judgment was denied. It prohibits the “bring[ing]” of “more than one motion for summary judgment” by a party against an adverse party. As applied here and discussed earlier, plaintiff Bank filed on 11/12/2024 its first motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand and this prior motion for summary judgment was “denied in its entirety” on 3/26/2025. Under the plain language of §437c(a)(4) cited above, plaintiff Bank is statutorily barred from bringing a second motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand as the Bank has attempted to do here.

Notably, §437c(a)(5) provides an exception to the “single summary judgment motion” rule. That is, §437c(a)(5) provides in relevant part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, on motion or application of any party and a showing of good cause, the court may grant leave for the moving party to bring an additional motion for summary judgment.” However,, plaintiff Bank neither sought nor obtained leave of court to file a second motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand. Plaintiff Bank was required to bring a motion or application seeking permission to file a second motion for summary judgment and if the Court were to determine that such motion/application demonstrated “good cause,” the Court may have granted leave to file a second motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011961: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

of summary judgment. Plaintiff Bank failed to comply with such requirement. While nothing in §437c(a)(5) allows such motion seeking leave to be made itself within a second motion for summary judgment, the Court notes that even if it did so, the moving papers filed on 7/14/2025 do not in any event establish the requisite “good cause” to pursue a second motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand.

Accordingly, plaintiff Bank’s present motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand shall be denied in its entirety as procedurally improper under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(a)(4). As such, the Court need not proceed further but it nevertheless does so in order to address additional reasons why plaintiff Bank’s second motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand must be denied even if this motion had been procedurally proper.

Plaintiff Failed to Carry Its Initial Burden of Production. While plaintiff Bank’s 6/18/2024 complaint by its own terms alleges a total of six separate causes of action against defendant Chand for (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of contract (implied in fact), (3) money lent, (4) money paid, (5) open book account, and (6) account stated, the 7/14/2025 Notice of Motion explicitly indicates that plaintiff Bank is here seeking summary judgment on the first two causes of action for “breach of written contract” and “breach of contract (implied in fact),” respectively. (7/14/2025 Not. of Mot., p.1:25-28.)

Because the 7/14/2025 Notice of Motion does not purport to seek summary judgment on the entirety of the complaint (i.e., all six causes of action alleged in the complaint), the present motion for summary judgment must be denied regardless of whether defendant Chand has produced evidence sufficient to create any triable issue of material fact.

Additionally, although the 7/14/2025 Notice of Motion indicates that plaintiff Bank is moving for summary judgment on the first two causes of action for “breach of written contract” and “breach of contract (implied in fact),” respectively (7/14/2025 Not. of Mot., p.1:25-28), the moving separate statement by its own terms purports to address only the first cause of action for “breach of written contract,” with no mention of or reference to the second cause of action for “breach of contract (implied in fact).” Because the moving separate statement does not include facts sufficient to establish that plaintiff Bank is entitled to summary judgment on both causes of action identified in the 7/14/2025 Notice of Motion, summary judgment in plaintiff Bank’s favor must be denied regardless of whether defendant Chand produced evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact.

Finally, as referenced earlier, plaintiff Bank is not entitled to summary adjudication of the first cause of action for “breach of written contract” because neither the Notice of Motion nor the moving points & authorities anywhere indicate that summary adjudication is sought in the alternative to summary judgment and because the 7/14/2025 moving

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011961: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs CHAND 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

papers also fail to comply with CRC Rule 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. Therefore, neither summary judgment nor summary adjudication can be granted in favor of plaintiff Bank based upon the moving papers filed on 7/14/2025.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Chand must be and hereby is DENIED in its entirety.

The Court hereby STRIKES the Memorandum of Costs filed by plaintiff on 11/12/2024 and the Memorandum of Costs filed by plaintiff on 7/14/2025 because both are incomplete and because no judgment in plaintiff’s favor has to date 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 formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)