Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a breach of a loan agreement.  Defendant JCTLA Investment Corporation owns the real property located at 433 South Glen Blvd, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”).  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) No. 1.)  Defendant obtained an unsecured loan of $529,000 from Plaintiff Green & McCahill Holdings Limited, to pay for repairs, improvements and overdue taxes on the Property.  (UMF No. 2.)   

The loan is evidenced by a written affidavit dated April 6, 2010, stating that Plaintiff is entitled to the principal amount of $529,000 plus 8% interest to be compounded annually (the “Note”).  (UMF Nos. 2-3.)  The Note provides that defendant is to pay back the loan when it can from rent or sale of the Property.  (UMF No. 5.)   

In March 2019, Defendant paid Plaintiff $529,000, for the principal amount of the Note.  (UMF No. 8.)  However, to date, Defendant has not paid back any interest due on the Note.  (UMF No. 9.)   

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of contract and (2) money lent.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for summary adjudication.  Plaintiff argues it is entitled to summary judgment on its complaint because there is no triable issue on all essential elements of its claims.         

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).   

A plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment if it has proven each element of the cause of action entitling it to judgment on that cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (p)(1).)  This means that a plaintiff who bears the burden of proof at trial by a preponderance of the evidence must produce evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not.  (Lillian F. v. Superior Court (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 314, 320.)  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 plaintiff has made its evidentiary showing, the burden shifts to the defendant who must “set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action.”  (West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Ward (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 181, 188.)  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.) 

The California Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff seeking summary judgment must only prove its cause of action and need not disprove any alleged affirmative defenses:  “Summary judgment law in this state no longer requires a plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action … All that the plaintiff need do is to ‘prove[] each element of the cause of action.’”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) 

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The Court overrules Defendant’s Objection Nos. 1-3, 5-9, 11-23 and the Court sustains Defendant’s Objection Nos. 4, 10.  The Court sustains Plaintiff’s Objection Nos. 1-12. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff argues there is no triable issue on its claim for breach of contract.  The Court disagrees.   

The elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach and (4) the resulting damages to the Plaintiff.  (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)  Plaintiff has produced evidence on each element of its breach of contract claim except for the amount of damages.  Plaintiff’s separate statement does not quantify the amount of interest due under the Note.   

A motion for¿summary judgment, or summary adjudication of a cause of action,¿must be denied if there is a¿triable issue of fact as to the¿amount¿of¿damages.  (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court¿(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 243¿(“Because issues¿of the calculation of damages apparently remain to be determined, it is not appropriate to grant summary judgment for appellant at this time.”); Weil & Brown, Jr., RUTTER: Cal. Prac. Guide - Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶10:33, p. 10-6 and 7 (2020) (“plaintiff cannot obtain summary adjudication of the liability issue and leave the damages issue for resolution at trial”);¿see also CCP §437c(f)(l);¿McCaskey v. California State Automobile Association¿(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 947, 975¿(“If a cause of action is not shown to be barred in its entirety, no order for summary judgment -- or adjudication -- can be entered.”). 

Plaintiff next argues there is no triable issue on its claim for money lent.  The Court disagrees.   

The elements of common count for money lent are: (1) defendant is indebted to plaintiff in a certain sum; and (2) for money lent, paid or expended to, or for, the defendant. (Moya v. Northrup (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 276, 280.)  “The obligation to pay is rested upon the equitable principle of preventing unjust enrichment as applied to the particular circumstances which have arisen between the parties.” (Moya v. Northrup (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 276, 281.)  Here, again, Plaintiff has not presented evidence of the amount due on its common count.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for summary adjudication.   

DATED:  September 12, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court