Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV00029, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00029    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: O

Case Name:  Li v. Q8 Capital, Inc., et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Didier Li

RESP. PARTY:         None filed

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Li’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

            “A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP §437c(p)(1).  

            Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract against Defendants Q8 Capital, Inc. and Fallah Alfallah.  The cause of action against Q8 is based on the Loan Agreement with Q8.  The cause of action against Alfalla is based on his personal guaranty of Q8’s loan from Plaintiff. 

            To prevail on his claim for breach of contract against Q8, Li need only establish: (1) the

existence of the contract; (2) Li's performance; (3) Q8 Capital's breach; and (4) damages.

See First Commercial Mortgage Co. v. Recce (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 731, 745.  To prevail on the claim for breach of the guaranty, Li need only establish that (I) Mr. Alfallah assumed liability for the debts of another; (2) the principal debtor (i.e., Q8 Capital) defaulted on its underlying obligations; and (3) Mr. Alfallah breached his obligation to pay upon default ofthe principal debtor. See Cal. Civ. Code §2807; R.P. Richards, Inc. v. Chartered Const. Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 146, 154. 

            Based on the undisputed facts, Plaintiff establishes each element of is breach of contract cause of action against each Defendant.  Plaintiff establishes the existence of a Promissory Note with Q8 in the amount of $600,000.  See Plaintiff’s SSUMF No.1.  Plaintiff establishes the existence of a personal guaranty of the Promissory Note by Alfallah.  See Plaintiff’s SSUMF No. 2.  Plaintiff advanced $600,000 to Defendant Q8 pursuant to the Promissory Note and Loan Documents and performed all his obligations under the Loan Documents.  Id. at ¶¶5-6.  Plaintiff establishes the maturity date of the Note was October 31, 2021, and Defendant Q8 failed to pay the full obligation by October 31, 2021.  Id. at ¶¶3 and 7.  Defendants Q8 and Alfallah never paid the required payment under the Note or the personal guaranty.  Id. at ¶¶8, 10-13.  Defendants now owe Plaintiff $492,025.22, comprising $472,853.30 in principal and $19,171.92 in accrued interest from 9-30-21.  Id. at ¶¶15 and 16.

            Defendants did not oppose.  Defense counsel represented at the hearing on 9-27-22 that Defendants do not dispute that the amount owed totals $492,025.22.  Defense counsel represented that the Defendants did not have funds to pay the note.  See Minute Order dated 1-27-22. 

            No triable issues of fact remain as to Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for breach of contract.  Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.