Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV21774, Date: 2022-12-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21774    Hearing Date: December 28, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition was filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least 14 days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 437c, subdivision (b)(2).

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of an allegedly unpaid loan obligation.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of guaranty; and (3) common count (money lent).  In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: On or about February 26, 2016, Defendant A&L Entertainment LLC (“A&L”) executed a note (the “Note”) in the principal amount of $90,000 in Plaintiff’s favor.  (Complaint ¶ 7, Exhibit A.)  On or about February 26, 2016, Defendant Lucy Keusseyan (“Keusseyan”) executed a guaranty (the "Guaranty") that provided that Plaintiff would receive all amounts owed by A&L under the Note.  (Complaint ¶ 13, Exhibit B.)[1]  A&L defaulted on the note when it missed a payment due on December 1, 2020 and all subsequent payments.  (Complaint ¶ 9.) 

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication (the “Motion”) on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to any of the three causes of action alleged in the Complaint.

DISCUSSION

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, subdivision (c) requires the 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.) 

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication meets the burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if the plaintiff has proved each element of the cause of action entitling them to judgment on that cause of action.  (CCP § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)  Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party 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.) Courts liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of the opposing party.  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Plaintiff’s Allegations and Evidence

The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.  (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

The elements of a breach of guaranty claim are: (1) a valid guaranty; (2) the borrower has defaulted; and (3) the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty.  (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486.) 

To state a common count for money lent, the plaintiff need only allege that the defendant is indebted in a certain sum for money loaned by the plaintiff and that the defendant has not repaid the money.  (Etchegaray Farms, LLC v. Lehr Brothers, Inc. (E.D.Cal. 2018) 326 F.Supp.3d 987, 994; see also 55 Cal. Jur. 3d Restitutions § 29.) 

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff provides evidence of the Note, which was executed by A&L on February 26, 2016.  (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 1.)  On the same day, Keusseyan executed the Guaranty to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Note with A&L.  (UMF 2.)  Plaintiff has performed all its obligations under the Note and Guaranty.  (UMF 3.)  A&L and Keusseyan failed to make the payment due on February 1, 2021 and all subsequently due payments.  (UMF 4.)  There remains a $51,619.01 balance on the loan.  (UMF 5.)  Following the default on the Note, interest in the amount of $4,988.72 has accrued on the outstanding principal owed to Plaintiff.  (UMF 7.)

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden to show that there are no triable issues of material fact as to whether A&L defaulted on the Note and Keusseyan subsequently breached the Guaranty. As the Motion is unopposed, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show the existence of any triable issues of material fact.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person.  The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.  This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

     Dated this 28th day of December 2022