Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC01358, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01358     Hearing Date: September 26, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Giselle Flores

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Gisselle Flores’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300)             OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a)                                     OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of September 25, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 25, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff Gisselle Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Rebecca L. Barrie (“Defendant”) for an alleged breach of a real property purchase contract.

On April 29, 2021, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint admitting certain allegations, denying others, and asserting certain affirmative defenses.

On June 13, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Specified in Request for Admissions, Set Two, Admitted, and Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  (6-13-22 Minute Order.)

On January 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial, thus, continuing trial to October 18, 2022.

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”).  On September 15, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to September 26, 2022.

No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).)  The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition.  (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 742-743.)  Thus, “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 (citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.).  When a plaintiff seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).)  The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and the courts must construe the evidence in support of the opposing party, resolving any doubts in favor of the opposing party.  (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639; Scalf, 128 Cal.App.4th at 1519; Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden.  (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.)  Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p).)  The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation.  (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162.)  Summary judgment must be granted “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.)

As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).)  “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”  (Ibid.)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a court order granting summary judgment in her favor and against Defendant on grounds that Plaintiff has established the elements of her cause of action for breach of contract.  (Mot. p. 2.)

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract 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.)

As the moving party, Plaintiff has the burden to show, through admissible evidence, that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to each element of a cause of action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff alleges that she and Defendant “entered into a Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instruction (RPA) for the purchase of real Property commonly known 10205 Park Street, Bellflower, CA 900706.”  (Flores Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff argues that this fact is undisputed, as Defendant accepts it in her Answer.  (See Answer.)  The terms of the RPA state that upon vacating the premises, Defendant had to leave the stove, washer and dryer, refrigerator, two hanging TV’s with brackets and a security system.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. 1: p. 11, ¶ 1(C)(5).  Moreover, at the close of Escrow, Defendant was to provide the keys to the Plaintiff and remove trash and debris from the property.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 5-6; Ex. 1: p. 4 - ¶ 9(F)), p. 5 - ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff alleges that she performed all of her obligations under the RPA.  (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff submitted the initial deposit in escrow of $10,000, followed by an additional $45,000, secured a mortgage as required by the RPA, and closed escrow.  (Ibid.; Ex. 1.)  Furthermore, all conditions for Defendant’s performance under the RPA had occurred.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8-9; Ex. 1.)

According to Plaintiff, Defendant breached her obligations under the RPA because she did not leave the keys, refrigerator, television, and television mount.  (Ibid. at ¶ 10.)  Plaintiff also found “large amounts of trash and debris that had not been removed as promised by the Defendant in the RPA.  (Ibid. at ¶ 11; Ex. 2; Exs. 12-13.)

As a result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff had to acquire new locks and pay for removal of trash and debris from the property.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 12-13; Exs. 3-4.)  Plaintiff was also deprived of the refrigerator, television, and television mount that she was to receive as part of the agreement and requests the fair market value of these items.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 14-20; Exs. 5-10.)

After discovering the breach, Plaintiff’s counsel sent three demand letters to attempt to resolve the issue through mediation.  (Lopez Decl. ¶ 5.)

The Requests for Admission deemed admitted against Defendant contradict any denial in her Answer.  Specifically, they admit that

(1)   Defendant was served with a Demand for Arbitration Letter on three occasions by Plaintiff’s counsel;

(2)   Defendant did not agree to meditate the matter before February 16, 2021;

(3)   Defendant “took the refrigerator, television, and T.V. mount” when she left the property at issue;

(4)   Defendant “failed to leave the SUBJECT PROPERTY in a clean condition” when she left;

(5)   Defendant “left the keys to the SUBJECT PROPERTY with the neighbors” when she left.

(10-8-21 Mot. to Deem - Lopez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A; 6-13-22 Minute Order.)

Defendant has not filed an Opposition or any objections to the instant Motion to argue that there is a genuine dispute of material fact.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s evidence, along with the Requests for Admission that were deemed admitted, is sufficient to establish the existence of the Residential Purchase Agreement, Plaintiff’s performance of its obligations under the RPA, Defendant’s breach by failing to abide by the terms of the agreement, and the resulting damages to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has thus met its burden and, accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its cause of action for breach of contract.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Gisselle Flores’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.