Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV23320, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23320    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 68

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 68

BACKGROUND

            On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff Wells Fargo filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, account stated, and money lent. On or about October 31, 2002, Plaintiff received a Loan Application Agreement and Personal Guarantee on behalf of Defendant Daysun Ablakhad. (SSF Fact No. 1.) Defendant Ablakhad (Defendant) was granted a Business Line of Credit. (SSF Fact No. 2.) Plaintiff extended the Line of Credit to Defendant, which Defendant agreed to repay. (SSF Fact No. 3.) Defendant is in default under the Line of Credit, as Defendant failed to make the monthly payment amounts due, and the last payment Plaintiff received was on April 22, 2020. (SSF Fact Nos. 4-5.) The current amount due on the Line of Credit is $72,257.94. (SSF Fact No. 7.) Pursuant to the Loan Application Agreement and the amount owed on the Line of Credit, Plaintiff is requesting $4,160.32 in attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $647.53. (SSF Fact No. 11.)

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as to the cause of action for breach of contract. No opposition has been filed.

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.) 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.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the basis that there are no triable issues of material fact.

I. No Issue of Triable Fact as to the Breach of Contract Cause of Action

            Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on the basis that all the elements for breach of contract have been met, and there are no triable issues of material fact as to the cause of action.

“To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (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, Plaintiff has proven the existence of a contract in the form of the Credit Application and Business Line of Credit that it extended to Defendant. Plaintiff performed on the contract by extending the line of credit to Defendant. Defendant breached the agreement by failing to make the monthly payments. Damages to Plaintiff are the current amount due on the Line of Credit, which is $72,257.94.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has sustained its burden that there are no triable issues of material fact as to the cause of action for breach of contract.

II. Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiff has requested attorney fees in this case.

“Ordinarily, contractual attorney’s fees must be sought by noticed motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(5); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 870.2(b); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Loo (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1797-1798 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 541].) This is true regarding both the entitlement to, and the amount of, the fees. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 870.2(a).)) The necessary motion may be filed after the judgment has already been entered (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 870.2(b))—and almost always is, for good reasons. First, before the entry of judgment, there is technically no prevailing party. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Second, the parties may still incur additional fees. Thus, here the trial court erred by adjudicating the entitlement to fees in the judgment before any motion for fees had been filed. This particular error, however, was waived by failure to object below.”

P R Burke Corp. v. Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1052 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 98]

            Plaintiff may file an appropriate Motion for an award of attorneys fees pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1702

Plaintiff is seeking costs in the amount of $647.53. (Ramirez-Browning Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff is not seeking any interest. (Ramirez-Browning Decl., ¶ 3.)  Costs may be sought pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1700

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted.  Plaintiff shall be awarded judgment against Defendant DAYSUN ABLAKHAD AKA DISOUN A ABIKHDZOUMALAN DBA DAYSUN AUTO WHOLSALER in the amount of $72,257.94.

The Court shall executed the Proposed Judgment received 11/04/2022, modified to delete the award of attorneys fees and costs.