Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

XIAOXING ZHANG,

ZHE ZHANG, et al.

PLAINTIFF XIAOXING ZHANG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Xiaoxing Zhang’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that in in March 2019, he and Defendant Zhe began negotiations for the renovation of five bathrooms at a property located in Irvine, California. (Compl., ¶¶6, 11.) Plaintiff, Zhe, HLS, and Envirogreen made an oral argument to renovate the bathrooms for $58,000. (Compl., ¶12.) Zhe required Plaintiff to make a $6,000 deposit, which Plaintiff paid. (Compl., ¶13.) Zhe required Plaintiff to make a second payment of $18,000, which Plaintiff did under duress. (Compl., ¶13.) Zhe did not begin work on the bathrooms until May 2019. (Comp., ¶14.) 21 days after beginning the renovations, Zhe provided Plaintiff with a contract with entirely different terms and covering the renovation of only three of the five bathrooms for the same price. (Compl., ¶15.) Plaintiff refused to sign the contract. (Compl., ¶16.) Despite paying Zhe $24,000 before work commenced, Defendants failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, causing Plaintiff to pay $30,000 to other subcontractors to complete the work. (Compl., ¶25.) In July 2019, Zhe sent Plaintiff a text message stating it would be better for Plaintiff to finish the renovation himself. (Compl., ¶26.) Zhe refused to refund Plaintiff’s funds. (Compl., ¶27.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Xiaoxing Zhang filed his Complaint against Defendants Zhe Zhang, HLS Highlife Style, LLC, and Envirogreen Windows and Doors, Inc. (“Envirogreen”).

On May 26, 2020, Zhe Zhang and Envirogreen answered and filed a Cross-Complaint.

On October 6, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admissions (“RFAs”) propounded on Defendant Zhe admitted.

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no genuine issues of material fact remaining as to his causes of action against Zhe and Environgreen. Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment as to Defendants’ Cross-Complaint.                                                                                                                                               

I. Legal Standard

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., section 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).) On a plaintiff’s motion, the plaintiff must present evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not. (Id at p.845.) The plaintiff meets his burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if he has proved each element on that cause of action. (Id at p.849.) The burden then shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense. (Id.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., section 437c(c).) 

II. Analysis

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.”  (Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1244.) 

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.”  (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)  Requests for admissions “differs fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The purpose of the admissions procedure . . . is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’  Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.”  [Citations.]  Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contrary evidence.  [Citation.]”  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.) 

Deemed admissions constitute incontrovertible evidence establishing the facts they admit.  (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1522.) 

Here, Plaintiff’s motion is based on the RFAs deemed admitted as to Zhe on October 6, 2022. Although Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that he attached a copy of the RFAs, only a copy of the motion to deem RFAs is attached to his declaration. (Tatone Decl., Exh. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement as required by Code Civ. Proc., section 437c(b)(1) and Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350.

DATED:  December 4, 2023

______________________________

                                                                      Hon. Jill Feeney

                                                                      Judge of the Superior Court