Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV31042, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31042    Hearing Date: November 2, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

Bank of Hope vs. Rajinder Adlakha, et al., 20STCV31042

Moving Party: Plaintiff Bank of Hope

I.                   Background

Plaintiff Bank of Hope (Plaintiff), formerly Sachan Bank, has sued Defendant Nishant Patel (Defendant). In December 2011, Adlakha & Patel Enterprises Inc. (the Borrower) executed and delivered to Plaintiff a Promissory Note for the sum of $448,00.00. (UMF No. 1.) In connection with the Note, Plaintiff and Borrower entered into a Loan Agreement. (UMF No. 2.) The Note provided that Borrower will pay the loan in full immediately upon Plaintiff’s demand. As part of the Loan Agreement, Defendant and Rajinder Adlakha executed a Guaranty in the event that the Borrower cannot pay. (UMF No. 6.)

Borrower defaulted on the loan obligations on December 23, 2018. (UMF No. 14.) Plaintiff made demand upon Defendant as the Guarantor for the repayment of the unpaid balanced due under the Loan and the Guaranty, but Guarantor has failed, refused and neglected to pay any sum. (UMF No. 18.) The current balance on the loan is $112,448.33. (UMF No. 31.)

Plaintiff filed this action on August 14, 2020. On September 9, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the other defendant in this action, Rajinder Adlakha. That motion was very similar to the current motion for summary judgment. After the Court granted Defendant’s motion for relief from default judgment, Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment against Defendant on August 15, 2023. Plaintiff’s seeks summary judgment on its Second and Fourth Causes of Action against Defendant; one cause of action for breach of contract, the other for money due.

II.                Analysis

a.      Standard for Summary Judgment and Adjudication

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.) CCP Section 437c(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.)¿ 

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.)¿ 

When interpreting § 437c, courts have held that a three-step analysis is required: (1) Identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading; (2) Determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in movant’s favor; and (3) Determine whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material factual issue. (AARTS Production, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1064-1065.)¿¿ 

Summary Judgment may be granted only where all the supporting and opposition papers show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment “as a matter of law.” (CCP § 437c(c).)¿¿ 

As a result, the Plaintiff “must present evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not—otherwise, he would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law but would have to present his evidence to a trier of fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851, fns. omitted; Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 562-563.)¿¿ 

The Defendant need only show the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Union Bank v. Super Ct. (Demetry) (1995) 31 Cal.4th 573, 590; see Lopez v. SuperCt. (Friedman Bros. Invest. Co.) (1996) 45 Cal.4th 705, 713; Leslie G. v. Perfy & Assocs. (1996) 43 Cal.4th 472, 482.) Summary judgment would not be proper where the facts support a triable issue of fact.¿ 

b.      Issues for Summary Judgment

                                                              i.      Issue No. 1

Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on its Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract against Defendant in the amount of $112,448.33, plus $30,382.66 for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff makes this motion on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact for this cause of action, and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

To prevail on a breach of contract claim, a party must prove that there was a contract, the party’s performance or excused nonperformance under the contract, the other party’s breach of the contract, and resulting damages. (Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College District (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1545; Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 813, 819 (breach of guaranty is a contract claim).) Moreover, a borrower’s obligation to pay arises immediately upon borrower’s default. (Civ. Code § 2807; Escrow Agents’ Fidelity Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 491, 496 (“A surety is obligated by law to pay the creditor of its defaulting principal immediately upon the principal’s default or defalcation.”).)

Adlakha & Patel Enterprises Inc., as the Borrower, defaulted on its loan obligations and has failed and refused to pay the amount it owes Plaintiff under the Loan Documents, thereby triggering Defendant’s, as the Guarantor, obligations to pay Plaintiff under the Guaranty. (UMF Nos. 14 – 16, 49 – 51.) Plaintiff has made demand upon Guarantor but Guarantor has failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the sums due under the Guaranty. (UMF Nos. 18, 53.) Guarantor’s failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff, which has complied with its obligations, has proximately damaged Plaintiff in the amount of $122,448.33, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (UMF Nos. 32 – 35, 67 – 70.)

Defendant argues in his opposition that the Guaranty was unconscionable and that there was no meeting of the minds. However, Defendant provides no evidence to back up this assertion. Defendant also argues that there was no consideration, but because the Guaranty was contemporaneous with and part of the same transaction as the entire Loan transaction, then the loan was the consideration. The purpose of the Guaranty was to guaranty the original obligations of Borrower on the Loan.

            Based on the foregoing, there is no triable issue of material fact whether Defendant breached the Guaranty, and Plaintiff has been damaged as a result. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action.

                                                            ii.      Issue No. 2

Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on its Fourth Cause of Action for Money Due against Defendant in the amount of $112,448.33. Plaintiff makes this motion on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact for this cause of action, and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The elements for a common count claim of money due are (1) statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration provided, and (3) nonpayment of the amount indebtedness. (Allen v. Powel (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 502, 510; Utility Audit Co. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 958.)

Defendant, as the Guarantor, is indebted to Plaintiff in the aggregate amount of $112,448.33, pursuant to the Loan and the Guaranty. Plaintiff’s consideration for the indebtedness was the loan that Plaintiff made to Borrower at Guarantor’s request pursuant to the Patel Guaranty. Despite demand by Plaintiff, Guarantor failed and refused to pay what is owed to Plaintiff. [UMF Nos. 1 – 6, 18, 71 – 76, 88]

No triable issues of material fact exists for this cause of action. Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication for the Second Cause of Action is granted.

III.             Order

Plaintiff Bank of Hope’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.