Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV09758, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition to the motion was required to have been served and filed not less than 14 days preceding the noticed or continued date of hearing, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(2).)

This case arises from an alleged breach of a loan agreement where Plaintiff provided a monetary loan to Defendant James Dolback (“Dolback”), who subsequently failed to repay the loan as agreed. On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint (“Complaint”) asserting causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment. On May 28, 2024, Defendant filed an answer (“Answer”).

On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues Re Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract (the “Motion”). No opposition has been filed.

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the following: (1) Defendant’s Answer (Exh. 2); (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Exh. 3.); and (3) Massachusetts General Laws, Part III, Title II, Chapter 231, § 6C (Exh. 4). The requests are GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452(b),(d): “(b) regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of ... any public entity in the United States”; and “(d) records of ... any court of this state...”)

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119, italics in original and quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “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, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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 ... has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant ... to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant … shall not rely upon the 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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “[A] plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal. 4th at p. 850, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).)”

Here, Plaintiff presents the following undisputed material facts based on Plaintiff’s testimony and documentary evidence, as well as on Defendant’s own admissions as set forth in his Answer: (1) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a loan agreement, which was memorialized in a Promissory Note (“Note”) executed on or about January 22, 2024. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material facts [“UMF”] No. 2); (2) Plaintiff provided Defendant with the agreed upon loan principal of $115,000.00, and performed all of his obligations pursuant to the Note (UMF No. 3); (3) The Note called for repayment of the loan in full by February 5, 2024, but Defendant has not repaid Plaintiff any amount on the $115,000 loan principal, nor any interest thereon (UMF No. 4,5); and (4) Plaintiff suffered damages as a result, including the loss of the $115,000 he loaned to Defendant which Defendant failed to repay with interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this lawsuit to collect from Defendant (UMF Nos. 6-11).

Plaintiff has met his burden of showing the existence of each element for the cause of action for breach of loan. The burden now shifts to Defendant to show a triable issue of material fact. Defendant, however, has presented no evidence to controvert the facts as presented by Plaintiff, and in fact made admissions in his Answer supporting the elements of a breach of contract as alleged and established by Plaintiff.

Given that the Motion is unopposed, Defendant has not met his burden of showing a triable issue of material fact. Moreover, because Defendant failed to oppose the Motion, Defendant has conceded to the arguments raised therein, as “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.) As such, Defendant has not met his burden in showing the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to a cause of action or defense thereto.

Accordingly, the Court finds there are no triable issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to summary adjudication on his first cause of action for breach of contract.

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