Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV36334, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were 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).

This action arises out of the alleged breach of a service contract. Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; and (2) common count: goods and services rendered.

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication (the “Motion”) on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact on the claims in the Complaint.

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).) 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.)

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.) The opposition papers must include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts that the moving party claims to be undisputed. (CCP § 437c, subd. (b)(3).) If the opposing party disputes a fact, then the opposing party must reference supporting evidence. (Id.)

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

To recover on a claim for the reasonable value of services under a quantum meruit theory, a plaintiff must establish both that he or she was acting pursuant to either an express or implied request for services from the defendant and that the services rendered were intended to and did benefit the defendant. (Ochs v. PacifiCare of California (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 794.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff provides evidence that it entered into a written agreement (the “Agreement”) with Defendant Anchor Marina, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 2.) Under the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to provide cleaning services for Defendant and clean up a spill on the water caused by a boat fire. (Id.) The Agreement also provided that Defendant would pay invoices within 15 days of receiving them. (UMF 3.)

Plaintiff began performing the services detailed in the Agreement in around December 2020 and completed its work in February 2021. (UMF 8-11.) During this time, Plaintiff submitted invoices totaling $400,456.01. (UMF 12-13.) Defendant failed to pay this amount despite Plaintiff’s demands. (UMF 15-17.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden to show that there are no triable issues of material fact for both causes of action alleged in the Complaint. For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court