Tentative Ruling: PNC Bank vs Van Bregmann Industries Inc et al
Case Number
24CV04433
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 03/02/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion: Summary Judgment
Tentative Ruling
PNC Bank, National Association v. Van Bregmann Industries, Inc., et al.
Case No. 24CV04433
Hearing Date: March 2, 2026
HEARING: Plaintiff PNC Bank National Association’s Motion for Summary Adjudication on the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Personal Guaranty
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 plaintiff PNC Bank National Association for summary adjudication 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 a motion to dismiss personal claims against him. On February 3, 2025, the motion was denied.
PNC now moves for summary judgment in its favor as to the second cause of action, for breach of personal guaranty, against defendant.
Defendant opposes the motion.
Analysis:
As an initial matter, defendant’s evidentiary objections are without merit and are overruled.
“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)
“A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)
“The plaintiff bears the initial burden to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to the defense and that he or she is entitled to judgment on the defense as a matter of law. In so doing, the plaintiff must negate an essential element of the defense, or establish the defendant does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence needed to support the defense.” (See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 900, (See’s Candy).)
“If the plaintiff does not make this showing, “ ‘ “it is unnecessary to examine the [defendant’s] opposing evidence and the motion must be denied.” ’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘ “However, if the moving papers establish a prima facie showing that justifies a [ruling] in the [plaintiff’s] favor, the burden then shifts to the [defendant] to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable material factual issue.” ’ ” [Citation.]” (See’s Candy, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 900.)
“Both in the trial court and on appeal, the “ ‘court focuses on finding issues of fact; it does not resolve them. The court seeks to find contradictions in the evidence or inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence that raise a triable issue of material fact.’ ” [Citation.]” (Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1, 29.)
As noted above, PNC’s motion is for summary adjudication of the second cause of action for breach of personal guaranty.
“A lender is entitled to judgment on a breach of guaranty claim based upon undisputed evidence that (1) there is a valid guaranty, (2) the borrower has defaulted, and (3) the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty.” (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486.)
In support of its motion, PNC provides the declaration of Assistant Vice President for PNC, National Association, Crystal Maness. Maness authenticates records that evidence defendant’s electronic signing of LOC documents, including business loan application disclosures. The declaration provides evidence that the LOC agreement was breached by VBI by failing to make all payments due thereafter beginning on March 2, 2024.
Relevant to the present motion, Maness declares:
“To further induce Plaintiff to enter into the LOC, concurrently with the execution of the LOC, VAN BREGMANN signed the Guaranty (‘Guaranty’), which guaranteed the prompt payment and performance of INDUSTRIES’ obligations on the LOC.” (Maness Decl., ¶ 10 & Exh. 3.)
“Pursuant to the Guaranty, VAN BREGMANN agreed to pay all reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff by reason of INDUSTRIES’ default under the LOC. (Maness Decl., ¶ 11.)
PNC has met its initial burden of showing that there are no triable issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment. However, defendant’s declaration in opposition shows that there is a triable issue of material fact that precludes the granting of summary judgment.
While a statement that defendant did not “recall” signing the personal guaranty would be insufficient to show a triable issue, that is not the case here. Defendant, in no uncertain terms, states under penalty of perjury that he did not sign, electronically or otherwise, the personal guaranty. (see Van Bregmann Decl., ¶¶ 2, 7, 25, 33.)
“The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true. [Citation.] Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court’s evaluation of credibility. [Citation.]” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.)
Because there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendant signed the personal guarantee, summary adjudication must be denied.