Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Jonathan Bodnar and Apollo Eleven, Inc. 

RESPONDING PARTY:  Plaintiff David Godley 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a breach of contract action.  Plaintiff David Godley filed a form complaint, asserting a single claim for breach of contract against Defendants Jonathan Bodnar and Apollo Eleven, Inc.  The form provides no details about the nature of the contract or the breach.  Plaintiff is appearing in pro per. 

Defendant Jonathan Bodnar is the sole shareholder and CEO of Defendant Apollo Eleven, Inc.  (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 9.)  Bodnar attests there is no contract between Godley and either Defendant.  (UMF Nos. 15, 16.)  The only contract that even relates to Godley, is a software development agreement, entered into between Change Enterprise Group LLC and Apollo Eleven Inc. (UMF No. 14.)  Godley signed the contract as the CEO of Change Enterprise Group LLC.  (UMF No. 21.) 

This Court previously granted Apollo Eleven Inc.’s motions to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in their Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”).  As a result of these Orders, Godley has been deemed to admit that (1) Bodnar did not enter into a contract or warranty agreement with Godley, (2) Apollo Eleven, Inc. did not enter into a contract or warranty agreement with Godley, and (3) the contract that is the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint is between Change Enterprise Group, LLC and Apollo Eleven, Inc.       

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot prove a breach of contract because there is no contract between Plaintiff and either Defendant.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Defendants request judicial notice of (1) the docket in the instant case, (2) the operative complaint filed in this action on June 14, 2022, (3) the notice of ruling and its related order dated March 29, 2023 on Bodnar’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted, and (4) the notice of ruling and its related order dated June 5, 2023 on Apollo Eleven Inc.’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.  The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(d) and 453.   

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 Ritchfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  Code Civ. Proc. §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. Minor 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).   

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(p)(2); Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.)  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.)  

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.)  

 

 

 

ANALYSIS 

Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s single claim for breach of contract, arguing that Plaintiff has not shown there is a contract between Plaintiff and either Defendant.  The Court agrees.    

Plaintiff has failed to attach any contract to his complaint.  Bodnar avers there was never a contract between Plaintiff and either Defendant.  (UMF Nos. 15-16, 18-19.)  Plaintiff is also deemed to have admitted there is no contract between Plaintiff and either Defendant by failing to respond to Defendants’ requests for admissions.  Accordingly, because Plaintiff cannot show there is a contract, there can be no breach of contract claim.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  

 

DATED: November 2, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court