PNC Bank vs Van Bregmann Industries Inc et al

Case Number

24CV04433

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/03/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Dismiss Personal Claims Against Defendant Peter Ryan Van Bregmann Jr

Tentative Ruling

PNC Bank, National Association v. Van Bregmann Industries, Inc., et al.                                                                                             

Case No. 24CV04433

           

Hearing Date: February 3, 2025                                            

HEARING:              Defendant Ryan Van Bregmann, Jr’s Motion to Dismiss Personal Claims Against him.

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association: Ken I. Ito, Hemar Rousso & Heald, LLP

                                    For Defendant Peter Ryan Van Bregmann, Jr. aka Peter Van

                                                Bregman: Self-Represented

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of defendant Ryan Van Bregmann, Jr.  to dismiss personal claims against him is denied.

Background:

This action commenced on August 9, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association (“PNC”) against defendants Van Bregmann Industries, Inc. (“VBI”) and Peter Ryan Van Bregmann Jr. aka Peter Van Bregmann (“defendant”) for: (1) Breach of Line of Credit, (2) Breach of Guaranty, (3) Money Lent, and (4) Account Stated.

As alleged in the complaint:

On May 21, 2019, PNC and VBI, through its CEO and Owner, defendant, executed a line of credit (“LOC”) in the maximum principal amount of $100,000.00. (Compl., ¶ 12 & Exh. 1.) VBI agreed to make payments, including final payment in full when due and owing. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

Concurrently with the execution of the LOC, defendant entered into a LOC guarantee, which guaranteed the prompt payment and performance of VBI’s obligations under the LOC. (Compl., ¶ 14 & Exh. 2.)

On March 2, 2024, VBI defaulted on its obligations to make payments pursuant to the terms of the LOC, and has continued to fail to bring the account current. (Compl., ¶ 16.)

The total amount due, owing, and unpaid by VBI to PNC is the principal sum of $100,000.00, late fees of $326.11, and default interest accruing at 5 percent above the variable interest rate on the account of Prime Rate plus 5.49 percent per annum or $39.24 per diem. (Compl., ¶ 20.)

Defendant has not honored his obligations under the terms of the LOC guarantee. (Compl., ¶ 25.)

On September 12, 2024, defendant filed his answer to the complaint, asserting a general denial and five affirmative defenses.

On October 1, 2024, VBI having filed no answer, default was taken against VBI.

On November 7, 2024, defendant filed the present motion to dismiss personal claims against him.

On January 16, 2025, PNC filed its opposition to the motion.

Defendant filed three separate reply briefs on the following dates: January 20, 2025, January 21, 2025 (captioned as a “supplemental brief”), and January 22, 2025.

Analysis:

“[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. [Citation.] . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

            Formatting Issues

Defendant’s moving papers and reply papers suffer from numerous formatting issues, such as page numbering, margins, and line spacing. Defendant will be expected to familiarize himself with, and comply with, the formatting requirements contained in California Rules of Court, rule 2.100 et seq. and rule 3.1110 et seq. for any future filings with the court.

            Motion to Dismiss

“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a).)

Defendant moves to dismiss based on Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10, subdivision (e) and 437c. (Notice of Motion, p. 1, ll. 25-25.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 authorizes the filing of a demurrer by a party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed. Here, defendant’s motion is not a demurrer.

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c pertains to motions for summary judgment. It is also inapplicable to defendant’s motion, as none of the procedural requirements for bringing a motion for summary judgment have been satisfied.

The court would treat the motion as a demurrer. However, defendant argues, in his third filed reply, that the “motion is not a demurrer but a substantive challenge to the agreement.” (Jan. 22, 2025, Reply p. 1, ll. 25-28.) As defendant states that it is not a demurrer, the court need not go through an analysis as to the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint, other than to say that if it were a demurrer, the demurrer would be overruled.

By way of his motion, defendant makes the arguments that corporate officers are not personally liable for corporate debts in the absence of personal assumption of liability, that PNC fails to allege or prove the existence of a personal guaranty by defendant, that there is no legal basis to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability on defendant, that PNC fails to state facts sufficient to establish a cause of action against defendant personally, and that PNC’s attempt to hold defendant personally liable violates established principles of corporate law and public policy.

While the failure of defendant to properly specify the grounds for his motion is enough to deny the motion, the motion fails for other reasons as well. Defendant’s argument that PNC is attempting to pierce the corporate veil is simply incorrect. The complaint is straight-forward. PNC is seeking to hold defendant personally liable for allegedly breaching the LOC guarantee. The guarantee is attached to the complaint as Exhibit 2.

Any challenges to the validity or enforceability of the LOC guarantee must be brought either by a procedurally proper motion or at trial.

In addition, by way of his three replies, defendant introduces new arguments that are not directed at PNC’s opposition. Those arguments will not be considered. “Points raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered, because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument.” (American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453.)

Defendant’s motion will be denied.