Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV27879, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27879    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, but for the attorney fees award request which is to be determined by separate motion.

            On 7/292/2021, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. filed suit against Cremak Ochoa Creative, LLC, alleging: (1) open book account; (2) account stated; (3) reasonable value; and (4) breach of contract.

            Now, Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on its breach of contract cause of action.

            Plaintiff filed a notice of qualified non-opposition.

Discussion 

            Plaintiff argues that the undisputed evidence establishes its breach of contract cause of action. In support, Plaintiff submitted the following evidence:

-         Plaintiff is a collection agency that was assigned this balance by Typecraft, Inc. (Typecraft) for collection of unpaid monies due for goods and services rendered at Cermak Ochoa Creative, LLC’s (Cermak) request.

-         On November 8, 2018, Typecraft and Cermak entered into 5 written agreements (the Contracts) for goods and services rendered. (SS ¶ 1.)

-         Typecraft Inc. has duly and fully performed all terms, conditions, and specifications in connection with all 5 written agreements. (SS ¶ 3.)

-         Cermak breached the terms of the Contracts by failing to pay the balance due and owing in the sum of$30,465.50. (SS ¶ 4)

-         Cermak remitted a deposit payment in connection with each of the Contracts, however Cermak failed to remit any further payment and there is a balance due and owing relative to each Contract. (Mayes Decl., ¶ 6, Exhs. 2-3.)

-         Typecraft Inc. sent the following invoices to Cermak which remain unpaid: (I) Invoice #10496- deposit $2,240.00 and total due $2,093.00; (2) Invoice #10497- deposit $2,000.50 and total due $2,027.50; (3) Invoice #10498- deposit $17,000.00 and total due $18,698.00; (4) Invoice #10515- deposit $5,500.00 and total due $5,165.00; and(5) Invoice #10516, deposit $2,500.00 and total due $2,482.00. (Mayes Decl., Exh. 2.)

-         Cermak admits to receiving invoices from Typecraft showing a total balance of $30,465.00 and Cermak admits that it has no writing disputing any of these invoices. (Jun Decl., Exh. 6., Defendant’s responses to RFA Nos. 30 and 32.)

-         Cermak also admits that it did not dispute the Statement of Account and that it has no writing disputing the Statement of Account. Jun Decl., Exh. 6 Defendant's responses to RFA Nos. 36-37).

-         Cermak admits that it owes Typecraft the principal sum of $30,465.50 and that it has no evidence to dispute the principal sum. (Jun Decl. Exh. 6, Defendant's responses to RFA Nos. 44 and 46).

In sum, Plaintiff submitted evidence that: (1) Typecraft and Cermak entered into a contract; (2) Typecraft complied with its obligations under the contract; (3) Cermak failed to remit full payment for services rendered; (4)  Typecraft sent, and Cermak received, invoices showing the total outstanding balance; (5) Cermak admits that it owes an outstanding principal balance of $30,465.50, together with interest thereon at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum from 2/28//2019; (6) Plaintiff, as an assignee, is entitled to recover this amount for breach of contract. Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to Plaintiff to disclose a triable issue of material fact.

In opposition, Defendant indicated that it did not oppose the motion on the merits. Rather, Defendant only opposed the motion’s request for attorney fees. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not set forth its basis for recovering attorney fees, and any such award should be determined by separate motion.

The Court agrees that any attorney fees award, if warranted, must be separately briefed to allow the Court to assess whether or not attorney fees are recoverable, and, if so, the reasonableness of the requested award.  

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, but for the attorney fees award request.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.