ARF FINANCIAL, LLC. VS. ALEXANDRE D. TROUAN, ET AL

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 11 25-CIV-05770 ARF FINANCIAL, LLC. VS. ALEXANDRE D. TROUAN, ET AL

ARF FINANCIAL, LLC. ANGELA A. VELEN ALEXANDRE D. TROUAN JEFFERY P. BOYKIN

Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, plaintiff ARF Financial, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), filed Feb. 3, 2026, is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c.)

However, as discussed below, plaintiff’s request for recovery of attorney’s fees is not properly supported, and therefore must be sought by separate motion.

Defendants’ “Objections to Evidence,” lodged on May 18, 2026, are OVERRULED. Sufficient foundation has been laid for these documents, and that the hearsay objection(s) lack merit due to the business records exception. Further, and independently, defendants admitted during discovery that the loan documents are genuine, and were signed by defendant Trouan.

A.

Background

This is a collections case involving defendants’ breach of a commercial loan and guarantee agreement. (See, generally, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.) On September 25, 2024, defendant Artisan Macaron, LLC dba Artisan Macaron signed and submitted a Merchant Credit Application to Timberland Bank, and obtained an initial loan from in the amount of $50,000. The loan was personally guaranteed by defendant Artisan Macaron, LLC’s principal, defendant Alexandre Trouan. (The loan documents are attached as exhibits to both the Feb. 3, 2026 declarations of Angela Velen and Vince Monard.)

Per the loan documents, Artisan Macaron, LLC initially agreed to repay the $50,000 loan in 78 weekly payments of $1,044.87 (consisting of principal + interest), commencing October 2, 2024. The principal loan amount was later increased to $65,377.11. B ased on this modified loan amount, defendant agreed to make payments to plaintiff totaling $106,564.69 (principal + interest). The lender (Timberland Bank) later assigned its rights, title, and interest in the loan to plaintiff ARF Financial, LLC.

Plaintiff has offered evidence that, to date, defendants have made total loan payments of $8,197.26. Accordingly, plaintiff argues that defendants still owe $98,367.43 on the loan ($106,564.69 minus $8,197.26 = $98,367.43.) Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees and costs.

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Breach of Written Agreement (Loan Agreement); 2. Breach of Guarantee; 3. Money Lent; 4. Indebtedness; 5. Unjust Enrichment (dismissed on February 5, 2026); 6. Account stated. Defendants admitted, during discovery, that Artisan Macaron, LLC entered into the subject Loan Agreement, and that Trouan personally guaranteed the loan. In opposition to this MSJ, defendants filed a responsive “Separate Statement” that purports to “Dispute” virtually every fact set forth in plaintiff’s moving Separate Statement.

Defendants’ responsive Separate Statement does not cite to, or identify, any evidence. Instead, it merely “objects” to plaintiff’s evidence. Specifically, defendants’ responsive Separate Statement objects to the loan documents offered in support of the MSJ, arguing that the attached loan documents are hearsay and not properly authenticated, and that defendant Trouan’s electronic signatures on the loan documents are not verified as his signature.

The court has overruled all of defendant’s objections. Therefore, defendants’ responsive “Separate Statement” consists solely of the repeated statement that plaintiff’s facts are “Disputed,” without any citation to evidence creating a fact dispute. Defendants have not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f)(2), which states:

An opposing party who contends that a fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the nature of the dispute and describe the evidence that supports the position that the fact is controverted. Citation to the evidence in support of the position that a fact is controverted must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f)(2).)

Moreover, defendants ignore the fact that during discovery, they admitted that the loan documents are genuine, and admitted that they were signed by Trouan. (Velen Decl., Ex. 3-4 [Defendants responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs].) Specifically, defendants admitted that (1) on or about September 25, 2024, defendant Trouan signed/executed the “Universal Merchant Credit Application” [RFA No. 1-Genuineness of Documents]; (2) on or about September 25, 2024, defendant Trouan signed/executed the Merchant (Loan) Agreement [RFA No. 2-Genuineness of Documents]; (3) on or about April 3, 2025, defendant Trouan signed/executed the TLRP Draw Request that increased the loan amount [RFA No. 3-Genuineness of Documents]; (4) the Account Statement showing defendants’ total “Loan Amount” of $65,377.11, defendants’ total “Pay back” amount of $106,564.69, and showing Defendants’ total payments made of $8,197.26, is a true and correct copy of defendants’ Account Statement. (RFA No. 4-Genuineness of Documents.)

Defendants also admitted during discovery, the following facts:

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ • “Per the terms of the [loan] AGREEMENT, [Defendants] were to repay PLAINTIFF pursuant to the Finance Charge Schedule over the course of 78 weeks.” (Defendants’ response to RFA No. 8: “Admit”);

• “[Defendants’] first loan payment would occur on October 2, 2024. (Defendants’ response to RFA No. 9: “Admit”);

• Defendants requested that Plaintiff debit the requested funds to Defendants’ JP Morgan Chase account ending in 0067. (Defendants’ response to RFA No. 10: “Admit”);

• “PLAINTIFF has performed all conditions, terms and obligations under the terms of the [loan] AGREEMENT.” (Defendants’ response to RFA No. 12: “Admit”);

• “As of the date of PLAINTIFF’s Complaint Filing, [Defendant] has only remitted a total of $8,197.26 to PLAINTIFF.” (Defendants’ response to RFA No. 13: “Admit”);

• The last payment Defendants made on the loan occurred on May 14, 2025. (Defendants’ response to RFA No. 14: “Admit”).

In response to plaintiff’s RFA No. 22, which asked defendants to “Admit that YOU have no defenses to PLAINTIFF’s Complaint,” defendants both responded:

“I admit that Artisan Macaron LLC owes money to Plaintiff.”

(Defendants’ response to RFA No. 14.)

Given defendants’ discovery admissions, defendants’ current argument that plaintiff, for purposes of summary judgment, has not sufficiently shown that defendants entered into the loan agreement, and have not shown that defendants breached the loan agreement or the guarantee agreement, are baseless.

Defendants admitted having signed the loan documents in question, which show a total loan of $65,377.11, a total “Pay back” amount of $106,564.69, and total payments made of $8,197.26. Defendants do not dispute any of these figures. Instead, defendants merely “object” on grounds that that the loan documents purportedly have not been properly authenticated, are hearsay, and/or that the electronic signatures have not been shown to be genuine. But as noted above, these objections lack merit. Accordingly, the court finds that there is no triable issue as to the amount owed on the loan, which is $98,367.43 ($106,564.69 minus $8,197.26 = $98,367.43.)

The court also notes that defendant Trouan has not filed any declaration (indeed, defendants have not filed any evidence) supporting the Opposition papers. This is noteworthy, because if defendants genuinely disputed that Artisan Macaron, LLC took out the subject loan, that Trouan personally guaranteed the loan, that defendants breached the loan agreement and the guarantee agreement by only making payments of $8,197.26, or that defendants currently owe $98,367.43 per the loan documents, presumably, Trouan would have said so under oath.

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ However, any denial of these facts would likely have directly contradicted defendants’ admissions already made in discovery.

Defendants are correct that because plaintiff has not sought summary adjudication, in order to prevail on summary judgment, plaintiff must present evidence establishing the elements of each asserted cause of action. Plaintiff has done so, and therefore, plaintiff met its initial burden under Code of Civil Preocedure, section § 437c, subdivision (p)(1). Plaintiff’s evidence establishes that defendants breached the loan agreement (and guarantee) by only making payments of $8,197.26, and thereafter discontinuing the payments, leaving a balance due of $98,367.43.

Defendant Trouan admitted signing the Guarantee, and therefore, the same evidence establishes Trouan’s breach of the Guarantee. The same evidence also establishes the common counts causes of action for “money lent” and “indebtedness.” Defendants’ RFA responses concede that defendant borrowed the money and have only repaid $8,197.26, leaving a balance of $98,367.43. Finally, Trouan admitted that the Account Statement showing defendants’ total “Loan Amount” of $65,377.11, a total “Pay back” amount of $106,564.69, and showing total payments made of $8,197.26, is a true and correct copy of defendants’ Account Statement. (Velen Decl., exhs. 3-4: RFA No. 4-Genuineness of Documents.)

Therefore, plaintiffs met their initial burden of establishing the elements of each asserted claim.

Defendants’ Opposition papers offer no evidence in response. Therefore, after the burden shifted to Defendants to come forward with evidence raising a triable issue as to one or more of the asserted claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Defendants failed to do so.

Minor errors in plaintiff’s moving and reply papers do not change the result. Plaintiff’s moving and reply papers contain some inaccuracies that appear to be typographical errors, which the court finds does not affect the result. For example, page 8 of plaintiff’s reply brief states that defendants owe a balance of $107,414 on the loan. This figure appears to be a typographical error, because in the very next sentence, plaintiff states that defendants owe $98,367.43. And the $98,367.43 figure is repeated throughout plaintiff’s papers, including in plaintiff’s Separate Statement and in the loan documents. Thus, the court assumes that the Reply brief’s reference at page 8 to “$107,414” is a typographical error.

Plaintiff’s Reply also oddly states that defendant’s responsive Separate Statement is defective because it purportedly does not state whether any of plaintiff’s facts are “disputed.” To the contrary, defendant’s responsive Separate Statement responds to virtually every fact by stating: “Disputed.”

Nonetheless, these errors do not change the result. As explained above, plaintiff met its initial burden on summary judgement, and once the burden of production shifted, defendant failed to offer any evidence raising a triable issue as to any of the asserted claims.

B. Attorney’s Fees Must be Sought by Separate Motion

Plaintiff cites to a provision in the operative loan documents permitting recovery of attorney’s fees, and with this Motion, plaintiff has lodged with the Court a “Proposed Judgment”

September 10, 2025 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ seeking recovery of $1,637 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff offers no evidence that plaintiff incurred attorney’s fees in that amount.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Any request for attorney’s fees must be sought by separate motion, and any request for costs must comply wuth Code of Civil Procedure, section 1032, and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1).

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.