Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV13784, Date: 2023-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13784    Hearing Date: July 12, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff Jose Ramos filed the instant action against Defendant RCMI. The complaint asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed him to perform construction and upgrades to Defendant’s apartment complex but that Defendant only partially paid Plaintiff for his work. Plaintiff alleges that the parties had a written agreement. Plaintiff claims damages of $200,000.

            On April 5, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem matters admitted because Plaintiff failed to respond to requests for admission. Plaintiff had not filed an opposition and did not appear at the hearing.

            On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff’s admissions preclude liability as a matter of law. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

DISCUSSION

To establish breach of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the contract existed, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)            

Here, the matters deemed admitted include: Plaintiff did not sign a written agreement with Defendant; Plaintiff did not have an oral agreement with Defendant; Plaintiff did not perform any work at the subject property; Defendant did not breach the agreement; and Plaintiff is not entitled to any payment. (McClintick Decl., Ex. 1.) These admissions are fatal to the breach of contract claim because they negate every element.

Although Plaintiff served his responses to the RFAs after this motion for summary judgment was filed, that does nothing to negate the Court’s April 5, 2023 order deeming the matters admitted. Plaintiff should have served the responses before the hearing on April 5. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) In any case, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion, thereby conceding it.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.