Northern Cal. Collection Service v. Love Transit CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Aug 13, 2025 No. G063634Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant forfeited its evidentiary and legal challenges due to an inadequate appellate brief and failed to demonstrate that the trial court's rulings were erroneous or prejudicial.

Issues

Did the trial court err in admitting an audit report over a hearsay objection?
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment on the causes of action for an open book account and an account stated?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because it is Love’s burden to demonstrate error, we conclude it has forfeited its contention that the admission of the audit report was improper.”

“These facts establish each element of an account stated.”

Filed 8/13/25 Northern Cal. Collection Service v. Love Transit CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., G063634 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022-01289437) v. OPINION LOVE TRANSIT INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed. Khouri Law Firm, Michael J. Khouri and Allan A. Knight for Defendant and Appellant. Andre J. LeLievre for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Love Transit Inc. (Love) appeals from the trial court’s granting of Northern California Collection Service, Inc.’s (NCCS) summary judgment motion. Love contends the trial court incorrectly admitted an audit report over its hearsay objection and wrongfully concluded NCCS was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Unfortunately, Love’s brief contains errors which make it difficult for this court to test the merits of its claim. From what we can test, we conclude the trial court did not err and, therefore, affirm the judgment. FACTS1 The State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) provided worker’s compensation insurance to Love for a one-year period. In exchange, Love agreed to pay SCIF a premium. But over the period of coverage, Love only paid $58.68. Following an audit of Love’s records, SCIF sent Love a bill for $87,545.24. Love did not request review, reconsideration, or an appeal of the audit or the bill. SCIF received no payments from Love. SCIF assigned the bill to NCCS for collection. NCCS received no payments from Love. NCCS filed a complaint against Love alleging common counts for an open book account and an account stated. Love filed a general denial and asserted affirmative defenses. NCCS later filed a motion for summary judgment. NCCS’s motion included a supporting declaration by a custodian of records for SCIF; the declaration attached the results of SCIF’s audit. According to the declaration, despite sending letters and a “final notice” to

Northern Cal. Collection Service v. Love Transit CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SANCHEZ, J.

MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.

SCOTT, J.

AI Brief