Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV12299, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 29, 2025

Case Name: North Star Leasing v. Ellae Lisque, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV18483

Matter: Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Plaintiff North Star Leasing

Responding Party: Defendant Ellae Lisque, LLC, et al.

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff North Star Leasing filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Ellae Lisque, LLC and Maxi James  for (1) breach of contract and (2) repossession of personal property.

Plaintiff alleges that it provided Defendants financing for a commercial trailer but that Defendants defaulted and failed to pay.

Plaintiff is pursuing a default judgment against James, but currently seeks summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Ellae Lisque, LLC.  Plaintiff argues that “After paying for registration of THE LEASE EQUIPMENT in the amount of $6,321, paying for repairs in the sum of $624, paying for towing and storage in the sum of $1,787.80, and after giving credit for $31,500 received after the repossession sale, there is a balance due and owing from defendants to plaintiff in the amount of $90,938.80 ($113,706 - $31,500 +$6,321 +$624 +$1,787.80). Despite demand, no payment has been made.”

The law of summary judgment provides courts “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.)  In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, courts employ a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)  The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue, in which case the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)  To show a triable issue of material fact exists, the opposing party may not rely on the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but instead must set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.  (Aguilar, at p. 849.)  Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Defendant argues that there are triable issues because (1) the trailer’s hydraulic system was defective and (2) the sale price at auction was too low, which is problematic for the issue of mitigation of damages.  

The first contention is rejected because Plaintiff is a lender and payment is nonetheless mandated.  Indeed, the subject agreement indicates that “Borrower hereby assumes and shall bear the entire risk of loss [ ] or destruction of or damage to the Collateral from any and every cause whatsoever, whether or not insured. No such loss or damage shall relieve Borrower from any obligation under this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.”  Further, “Borrower's obligation to pay the Payments shall be absolute and unconditional and is not subject to any termination, cancelation, abatement, set-off, defense or counterclaim for any reason whatsoever.”  Thus, if the trailer was defective, Defendant’s recourse was with the manufacturer and/or supplier.  

The Court also rejects Defendant’s second contention that the auction price for the trailer was too low.  The only evidence on this point is the testimony that “Based on my years in the logistics industry, I believe that the auction price that North Star Leasing achieved for the purportedly new 2023 Trailer was improper, either reflecting the Trailer's known hydraulic defects or as a result of an auction and choice of auctioneer designed to minimize the auction price, maximize auctioneer fees, and therefore maximize North Star Leasing's return from Ellae Lisque under the lease agreement.”  This is mere speculation and does not constitute evidence.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden and that there are no triable issues.  Judgment shall be entered on the contract claim against Ellae Lisque, LLC in the amount of $90,938.80. 

The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.  

A proposed judgment is to be provided within 10 days.

Moving party to give notice.