Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01235811, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Quick Bridge Funding’s motion for summary judgment against Defendant Joash Kemei, is granted.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment against Kemei on the third cause of action for breach of guaranty asserted, which is its sole claim against Kemei.

“[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at p. 851.)

Where a plaintiff seeks summary judgment, the burden is to produce admissible evidence on each element of a cause of action entitling him or her to judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1); S.B.C.C., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 383, 388.) This means that a plaintiff who bears the burden of proof at trial by a preponderance of evidence must produce evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not. (LLP Morg. v. Bizar (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 773, 776.) If plaintiff meets this burden, the burden then shifts to the defendant “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) 

The scope of this burden is determined by the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint. (FPI Development v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382 [pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion]; 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18-19 [defendant only required to defeat allegations reasonably contained in the complaint].)

Breach of 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.)

Here, the undisputed material facts establish:

(1) the existence of a valid personal guaranty executed by Kemei (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [“SSUF”] 4; Otero Decl., at ¶ 5, Exh. 1-Loan Agreement at p. 6); (2) the default of the borrower, Defendant Joshbell Trucking and Logistics LLC (SSUF 5; Otero Decl., at ¶¶ 6-8);

(3) Kemei’s failure to perform under the guaranty (SSUF 8; Otero Decl., at ¶ 7); and (4) an outstanding loan balance of $41,666.61. (SSUF 6; Otero Decl., at ¶ 8, Exh. 2 [Account Statement].)

Based on the foregoing facts, Plaintiff has met its initial burden of showing it is entitled to judgment in its favor on the third cause of action for breach of guaranty against Kemei. Thus, the burden shifts to Defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists. Defendant has failed to meet this burden, as he has not timely responded to the motion. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Because default was entered against the only other Defendant in this matter (see ROA 23), the court hereby vacates the June 12, 2023 court trial.  Counsel should be prepared to address if Plaintiff intends to seek a default judgment against Defendant Joshbell Trucking and Logistics LLC. 

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.