Motion for Summary Judgement/Summary Adjudication
June 5, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
12. 25CV1503 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. MARK C SCHILLE Motion for Summary Judgement/Summary Adjudication
Plaintiff filed this Motion for Summary Judgement/Adjudication on September 4, 2026.
No opposition has been filed.
[S]ummary judgment or summary adjudication is to be granted when there is no triable
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Mills v.
U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 894–895, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 146.) The “party moving for
summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the
nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he
causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to
make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 861–862, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.)
In Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1084, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, a
trial court granted summary judgment to defendant because plaintiffs failed to file any
opposition, pursuant to a local court rule providing that the failure to oppose a motion may be
deemed an admission that the motion is meritorious. On appeal, the local rule was held invalid
because it conflicted with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c by authorizing the trial court
“to grant summary judgment based solely on the absence of opposition, without a preliminary
finding that the moving party has met its initial burden of proof.” (Thatcher v. Lucky Stores,
Inc., supra, at pp. 1086–1087, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 575.) The Thatcher court emphasized that the
statute requires that the moving party assume the initial burden of producing evidence that no
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?”
June 5, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
triable issue of material fact exists. (Id. at p. 1085, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 575.) Boyle v. CertainTeed
Corp., 137 Cal. App. 4th 645, 654, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 501, 508 (2006)
Under summary judgment law, any party to an action, whether plaintiff or defendant,
“may move” the court “for summary judgment” in his favor on a cause of action (i.e., claim) or
defense (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a))—a plaintiff “contend[ing] ... that there is no defense
to the action,” a defendant “contend[ing] that the action has no merit” (ibid.). The court must
“grant[]” the “motion” “if all the papers submitted show” that “there is no triable issue as to
any material fact” (id., § 437c, subd. (c))—that is, there is no issue requiring a trial as to any fact
that is necessary under the pleadings and, ultimately, the law (see Riverside County Community
Facilities Dist. v. Bainbridge 17 (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 644, 653 [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 29]; Kelly v. First
Astri Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 462, 470 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 810])—and that the “moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)). The moving party
must “support[]” the “motion” with evidence including “affidavits, declarations, admissions,
answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice” must or may “be
taken.” (Id., § 437c, subd. (b) Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843, 24 P.3d 493 (2001),
as modified (July 11, 2001)
Here, Plaintiff has established through the affidavits and exhibits that the Defendant
entered into a contract with Plaintiff for a credit card. Defendant agreed to the terms of the
contract and made purchases totaling $19,945.94. defendant was provided monthly bills with
account statements. Defendant made payments on his account initially but by October of 2024
no further payments were made. The outstanding balance remained unpaid and continues to
June 5, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
remain unpaid. No evidence was offered to rebut the evidence presented. Therefore, the
Motion for Summary Judgement is granted. Judgement is entered for the Plaintiff in the
amount of $19,945.94. Plaintiff is granted to leave to file a motion for attorney fees and costs.
TENTATIVE RULING #12: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IS GRANTED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M.
ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M.
THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
23