ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders in-person attendance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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.

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

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

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Elite Acceptance Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment of its claim against Defendant Wayne Thomas (“Defendant”), or in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract is ruled upon as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties are directed to notify the clerk and opposing counsel at the time of the request which of moving plaintiff’s 26 Undisputed Material Facts will be addressed at the hearing. The parties should be prepared to point to specific admissible evidence already in the record which is claimed to show the existence or non-existence of a triable issue of material fact. ***

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b) and (h), requiring that each issue presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement.

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

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(d)(3) requiring citations to supporting and opposing evidence include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.

Factual Background

This action arises out of Defendant’s purchase of a used vehicle on or around March 20, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that it is in the business of purchasing retail installment sales contracts from automotive dealerships. Plaintiff purchased the sales agreement for Defendant’s vehicle purchase shortly after Defendant entered into the agreement. Plaintiff alleges that in February of 2024, Defendant defaulted on his payment obligations with an outstanding balance of $11,909.09. Despite attempts to repossess the vehicle, Defendant allegedly prevented Plaintiff from repossessing via violent and threatening behavior.

Plaintiff’s complaint brings causes of action for: (1) breach of contract and (2) replevin. This matter has not yet been set for trial.

Moving Papers. Plaintiff now seeks summary judgment of its claims against Defendant on the ground that no triable issues of material fact exist. As support for this contention, Plaintiff relies on Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) Nos. 1-26.

Alternatively, Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on the following grounds:

The first cause of action for breach of contract (CCP § 437c(f)(1) [“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

action...”].)

The Court notes that the 26 UMFs offered in support of summary judgment and in support of summary adjudication are identical. As both Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and alternative motion for summary adjudication rely on the exact same 13 UMFs, the existence of a single triable issue of material fact in connection with any UMF will mandate denial of both summary judgment and summary adjudication.

Opposition. Defendant has filed no opposition.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

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.)

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 and the oppositions, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

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).)

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

Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and replevin. The complaint alleges:

On or about March 20, 2023, Defendant purchased a used 2013 Infiniti G37 Journey Sedan 4D bearing VIN JN1CV6APIDM725122 ('Vehicle') from Adams Auto Sales Inc. (“Dealer”), who is not a party to this action, by way of a Retail Installment Sale Contract (“Thomas Purchase Agreement”). (Exhibit “1.”) Shortly thereafter, all right, title, and interest of Dealer in and to the Thomas Purchase Agreement was sold, transferred, conveyed, and assigned to Plaintiff for good and valuable consideration, and Defendant was notified immediately thereafter. By virtue of this assignment of the Thomas Purchase Agreement from Dealer to Plaintiff, Defendant was required to make the monthly payments outlined in the Thomas Purchase Agreement to Plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Thomas Purchase Agreement, Defendant was obligated to make monthly payments of $402.69 to Plaintiff, beginning on April 20, 2023, until the balance of $13,922.16 was completely satisfied 50 months later.

On or about February 21, 2024, Defendant stopped making payments to Plaintiff, despite owing an outstanding balance of $11,909.09, thereby breaching his obligation under the Thomas Purchase Agreement. (Exhibit “2.”)

(Compl., p. 3:4-17.)

“To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

(3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)

Pursuant to California Commercial Code section 2716:

(1) Specific performance may be decreed where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances.

(2) The decree for specific performance may include such terms and conditions as to payment of the price, damages, or other relief as the court may deem just.

(3) The buyer has a right of replevin for goods identified to the contract if after reasonable effort he or she is unable to effect cover for such goods or the circumstances reasonably indicate that such effort will be unavailing or if the goods have been shipped under reservation and satisfaction of the security interest in them has been made or tendered. In the case of goods bought for personal, family, or household purposes, the buyer’s right of replevin vests upon acquisition of a special property, even if the seller had not then repudiated or failed to deliver.

Plaintiff’s Initial Burden of Production. The threshold question here is whether the moving papers are sufficient to meet Plaintiff’s initial burden of production under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2) and if not, summary judgment and summary adjudication must be denied regardless of whether the opposition presented evidence showing a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff presents evidence supporting the following UMFs:

1. Defendant Thomas entered into a written Retail Installment Sale Contract (hereinafter, the “Thomas Purchase Agreement”) with Adams Auto Sales, Inc. (hereinafter, the “Dealer”) for the purchase of a used 2013 Infiniti G37 Journey Sedan 4D bearing VIN JNICV6AP1DM725122 (hereinafter, the “Vehicle”).

2. Defendant has confirmed that the transaction for his purchase of the Vehicle from Dealer occurred.

3. Dealer agreed to sell, and Plaintiff agreed to purchase, the Thomas Purchase Agreement. Subsequently, Plaintiff paid for and was assigned all rights and interests in the Thomas Purchase Agreement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

4. By virtue of the assignment, Plaintiff became the legal owner of the Vehicle and Defendant became the registered owner.

5. Dealer delivered possession of the Vehicle to Defendant and caused the Vehicle to be titled with Defendant as the registered owner and Plaintiff as the legal owner, thereby performing all or substantially all obligations under the Thomas Purchase Agreement.

6. Defendant was obligated to make monthly payments of $402.69 to Plaintiff until the remaining balance of $13,922.16 was satisfied.

7. Defendant made payments to Plaintiff pursuant to the Thomas Purchase Agreement prior to default.

8. On or about February 21, 2024, Defendant stopped making payments to Plaintiff, despite owing an outstanding balance of $11,909.09.

9. The Thomas Purchase Agreement contained a provision which permitted Plaintiff to repossess the vehicle if Defendant failed to make payments to Plaintiff.

10. As a result of Defendant's default, Plaintiff authorized the repossession of the Vehicle.

11. Plaintiffs attempts to repossess the Vehicle were unsuccessful. To date, Plaintiff has been unable to reclaim the Vehicle from Defendant.

12. The amount due and owing under the Thomas Purchase Agreement at the time of the filing of the Complaint totaled $12,398.64.

13. As of today, the amount which Plaintiff is owed for the Thomas Purchase Agreement totals $14,844.85, which represents the principal balance of $11,909.09, unpaid late fees of $39.25, finance charges in the amount of 3073.71, less an insurance premium refund of $177.20.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence to satisfy its initial burden to show that no triable issue of material fact exists and that there remains an outstanding balance of $14,844.85. (See Separate Statement of UMF Nos. 1-13.)

Having found that Plaintiff has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to Defendant to present triable issues of material fact which would preclude summary judgment. As noted above, Defendant has presented no opposition to the instant motion.

The Court therefore finds that Defendant has failed to meet his burden of production under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(1).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017357: ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION vs THOMAS 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

Disposition

The Court will sign the proposed order and judgment submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers.

Plaintiff's counsel shall submit a revised judgment pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1312 and Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (g).