DISCOVER BANK VS. AMELIA GUTILLA

July 10, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

14. 25CV0475 DISCOVER BANK VS. AMELIA GUTILLA MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT /SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

The Notice does not comply with Local Rules 7.10.05. Repeated violations will be grounds for sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 7.12.13. Plaintiff filed this Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication on November 17, 2025. 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 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

July 10, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

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).)

Likewise, any adverse party may oppose the motion, and, “where appropriate,” must present evidence including “affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice” must or may “be taken.” (Ibid.) An adverse party who chooses to oppose the motion must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to do so. (Id., § 437c, subd. (h).) In ruling on the motion, the court must “consider all of the evidence” and “all” of the “inferences” reasonably drawn therefrom (id., § 437c, subd. (c)), and must view such evidence (e.g., Molko v.

Holy Spirit Assn., supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1107; Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412, 417 [42 Cal.Rptr. 449, 398 P.2d 785]) and such inferences (see, e.g., Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1520 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 94] [review on appeal]; Ales-Peratis Foods Internat., Inc. v. American Can Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 277, 280, fn. * [209 Cal.Rptr. 917] [same]), in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843, 24 P.3d 493 (2001), as modified (July 11, 2001) The elements of an open book account cause of action are: “1.

That [plaintiff] and [defendant] had financial transactions ...; 2. That [plaintiff] ... kept [an] account of the debits and credits involved in the transactions; 3. That [defendant] owes [plaintiff] money on the account; and 4. The amount of money that [defendant] owes [plaintiff].” State Comp. Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422, 449 [264 Cal.Rptr.3d 68, 89].

The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the parties establishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, express or implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, express or implied, to pay the amount due. Zinn v. Fred R. Bright Co. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 597, 600 [76 Cal.Rptr. 663, 665–666].

Plaintiff has established the elements of Open Book Account and Action-Account Stated. Plaintiff has provided documents establishing personal loan account records, terms and conditions of the loan, monthly account statements, and an account history of payments, fees, interest, and a total outstanding balance. The evidence indicates that Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in financial transactions in which Plaintiff kept an account of the debits and credits involved in the transactions, and Defendant owes money in the amount of $20,532.03.

The transactions between the Parties establish an existing relationship, there was an express agreement on the amount due, and a promise by Plaintiff was express or implied as

July 10, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

indicated by the payments made from Defendant to Plaintiff. Plaintiff made payments from June 14, 2023 until August 31, 2024. The outstanding balance remains unpaid and continues to remain unpaid. No evidence was offered to rebut the evidence presented. The Court intends to grant Plaintiff’s Motion; however, appearances are required since Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant notice of the tentative ruling system.

TENTATIVE RULING #14: APPEARANCES ARE REQUIRED, PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES. 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.

38