Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 19STCV24054, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV24054    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 61

I.                   SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (a).) “[I]f 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,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment.  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; accord Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

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.  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850.)  The plaintiff may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.  (Ibid.)  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.)

Cross-Defendant Hazara (Grier) Price (hereafter Grier) moves for summary judgment against Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jarrell D. Davis’s (Davis) cross-complaint as follows: the first and second causes of action for breach of contract and declaratory relief, and the fourth and fifth causes of action for intentional interference with economic advantage and contractual relations.

“The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391, internal quotation marks omitted.)

The elements of a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are “(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1153.)

The elements of a claim for intentional interference with contract are “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” (I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257, 289.)

Grier presents the following evidence to support the motion. Davis’s claim for breach of contract is based on the allegations that he and Cross-Defendant Cedric Price entered into an agreement in April 2019 to offer his own properties as collateral for a $2.1 million loan that would be used to purchase another property, which Davis would be solely responsible for remodeling and reselling. (XC ¶ 32.) However, Cedric Price provides a declaration stating that he made no promises or agreements with Davis at that time for offering up his properties as collateral for purchasing another property. (Cedric Price Decl. ¶ 5.) Grier’s counsel testifies that in response to discovery requesting such information, Davis has failed to provide evidence that any such contract exists. (Mulkerin Decl. ¶ 3.) Thus Grier argues that Davis lacks evidence of the existence of a contract to support his breach of contract or declaratory relief claims.

Grier also presents a declaration stating that she had no knowledge of any contract or contractual or economic relation between Davis and any third party, and further that she had no intention by any act of disrupting any such relationship. (Grier Decl. ¶¶ 3–7.) Cedric Price offers similar testimony. (Cedric Price Decl. ¶¶ 11–13.)

Grier has presented evidence sufficient to show the absence of triable issues of fact as the existence of a contract for the purpose of the breach of contract action and its derivative claim for declaratory relief. Grier has also presented evidence that she had no knowledge of the existence of a contract or economic relationship as would support a claim for intentional interference with contract or economic relationship. Without these elements, Davis’s claims cannot proceed. Davis has offered no opposition to the motion.

Accordingly, Cross-Defendant Grier’s motion is GRANTED in its entirety.