Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "McCalla Central, LLC v. Semaan", Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

Plaintiff McCalla Central, LLC, moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication against Defendant Antoine Semaan on the First Amended Complaint. Defendant chose not to oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

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 851.) A plaintiff moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing with competent evidence that each element of the cause of action in question has been “proved,” and hence that there is no defense thereto.  (See ibid.) Once the moving party meets that burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to show, by reference to specific facts, the existence of a triable issue as to an affirmative defense or cause of action. (Id., at p. 855; Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App 4th 562, 575.)

First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract)

The first cause of action alleges that Defendant Antoine Semaan dba TGS Molding, LLC, breached a written commercial lease for the premises at 425 E. Park Center Circle Sough, San Bernardino, CA 92408.

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (i) existence of the contract; (ii) Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (iii) Defendant’s breach; and (iv) damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811.)

Here, the undisputed facts show: (1) Defendant Semaan executed a written lease and amendment for the premises (the “Lease”); (2) Plaintiff was assigned all rights, title, and interest in the Lease; (3) Plaintiff performed all conditions and covenants required of Plaintiff under the Lease; (4) Defendant breached the Lease by failing to pay the 12/2017 rent; and (5) Plaintiff has been damaged $311,313.55 as a result. (Pltf.’s Sep. St. Nos. 14, 18, 21, 27, 43, 44 [and evidence cited therein].)

Second Cause of Action (Breach of Guaranty)

The second cause of action alleges that Defendant Antoine Semaan breached a written guaranty of lease.

A lender is entitled to judgment on a breach of guaranty claim based upon undisputed evidence that: (i) there is a valid guaranty, (ii) the borrower has defaulted, and (iii) the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty. (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486 [citing Torrey Pines Bank v. Super. Ct. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 813, 819].)

Here, the undisputed facts show: (1) Defendant Semaan executed a written guaranty of the Lease; (2) Defendant breached the Lease; (3) Defendant failed to perform under the guaranty; and (4) Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $311,313.55 from Defendant for that breach. (Pltf.’s Sep. St. Nos. 47, 54, 55, 56 [and evidence cited therein].)

Plaintiff to give notice.