PNC Bank vs Van Bregmann Industries Inc et al

Case Number

24CV04433

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/28/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Reconsideration For Reconsideration

Tentative Ruling

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

Case No. 24CV04433

           

Hearing Date: April 28, 2025                                                  

HEARING:              Defendant, Peter Ryan Van Bregmann, Jr.’s Motion for Reconsideration.

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  Ryan Van Bregmann, Jr’s for reconsideration is denied. For any future filings with the court, defendant is ordered to comply with the formatting requirements contained in California Rules of Court, rule 2.100 et seq. and rule 3.1110 et seq.

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.

Defendant now moves for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to dismiss personal claims against him.

PNC opposes the motion and requests that defendant be sanctioned.

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

In ruling on the underlying motion to dismiss personal claims against him, defendant was advised:

“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.”

Defendant’s present motion continues to be non-compliant with the California Rules of Court formatting requirements. Defendant will be specifically ordered to comply with the Rules in any future filings with the court.

The court notes that defendant’s reply brief does, essentially, comply with the California Rules of Court.

            Motion for Reconsideration

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

“The party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.” (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.)

Here, despite his claims to the contrary, defendant does not present any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” in support of his argument. Rather, his argument is: “The Court failed to properly consider the substantive legal grounds raised in the Motion to Dismiss, focusing instead on minor procedural issues such as formatting. The Court failed to provide oral argument, denying Defendant due process and the opportunity to clarify any concerns raised in the tentative ruling.” (Notice of Motion, p. 2, ll. 2-5.) [Note: defendant makes other statements, which focus on PNC’s claimed procedural violations in this case. None of those claims, even if true, have any bearing on defendant’s motions.]

Defendant’s primary representations are false. Although the court did, as it does again in this ruling, admonish defendant that he is required to follow the California Rules of Court, the motion was decided based on substantive law and defendant’s failure to file a legally viable motion. Defendant’s argument that he was denied the opportunity to present oral argument is likewise false. Defendant could have, but did not, provide notice of intent to appear and present oral argument pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308, and Local Rule 1301 [“As set forth in CRC 3.1308, if the court has not directed argument, oral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear. A party may obtain tentative rulings and provide notice to the court of intention to appear using the following telephone numbers . . .”], but he did not do so.

As defendant has not provided any valid legal basis for reconsideration of the prior order, defendant’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

PNC’s request for sanctions against defendant will be denied.