Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22NWLC31103, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWLC31103 Hearing Date: November 29, 2023 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2023
Case Name: CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. v. MARTIN DONCHEV DONCEHV aka MARTIN D. DONCHEV, an individual and dba I M D Plumbing; and DOES 1-10
Case No.: 22NWLC31103
Motion: Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action / Trial Setting Conference
Moving Party: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff ’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Martin Donchev Donchev aka Martin D Donchev dba I M D Plumbing (“Defendant”) for the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) open book account; (3) account stated, and (4) reasonable value.
On February 24, 2023, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication (“Motion”). No opposition has been filed.
MOVING PARTY POSITION
Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of contract claim against Defendant because there are no triable issues of material fact in dispute. Specifically, Plaintiff presents evidence to establish all elements of its breach of contract claim. Defendant’s answer fails to allege any affirmative defenses that would create a triable issue of fact.
OPPOSITION
None filed as of November 22, 2023.
REPLY
None filed as of November 22, 2023.
ANALYSIS
I. Motion for Summary Adjudication
The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. In analyzing such motions, courts must apply 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. Thus, summary judgment or summary adjudication is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CCP § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.
As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the party moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate or establish an essential element. Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. 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. A motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be denied where the moving party’s evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition or where the opposition is weak. See Leyva v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475; Salesguevara v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.
Once the moving party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material fact exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto. CCP § 437c(o)(2). When a party cannot establish an essential element or defense, a court must grant a motion for summary adjudication. CCP § 437c(o)(1)-(2).
A. Undisputed Facts
State Compensation Insurance Fund (“SCIF”) issued a workers compensation insurance policy to Defendant that was in effect from March 21, 2021 to March 21, 2022. UMF Nos. 1-2; Bermudez Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. In June 2022, SCIF conducted an initial audit to determine the actual earned premiums due and owing for this policy and relied on information and payroll records provided by Defendant. UMF No. 3; Chavira Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1. Thereafter, Defendant provided information that one of his subcontractors had a valid California Contractor’s License, and in a revised audit conducted in September 2022, all compensation paid to that subcontractor was removed from the premium calculations. UMF Nos. 4-5; Brunson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. 1. The revised principal amounted owed by Defendant for earned premiums on his 2021 policy amounted to $17,111.12, and this principal balance, plus recoverable costs and interest, is due and owing from Defendant. UMF Nos. 6-7; Bermudez Decl. ¶¶ 7-11, Exhs. 4-7; Chavira Decl., Exh. 1; Brunson Decl., Exh. 1. SCIF ultimately assigned this debt to Plaintiff. Bermudez Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. 7.
B. Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract
“‘[T]he vital elements of a cause of action based on a contract are mutual assent (usually accomplished through the medium of an offer and acceptance) and consideration.” Pacific Bay Recovery Inc. v. California Physicians’ Services, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 200, 215. “To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.
Here, in support of its burden, Plaintiff submits evidence to show that Defendant had renewed his workers compensation policy insurance through SCIF, and the policy was in effect from March 21, 2021 and March 21, 2022. UMF Nos. 1-2; Bermudez Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. 2. The policy included within the renewal notice sets forth how insurance premiums are calculated and how Defendant is obligated to pay these premiums when due. Bermudez Decl., Exh. 2. Thus, the Court finds that the evidence submitted is sufficient to show the existence of a contract between Defendant and SCIF. Further, the evidence presented shows that SCIF later assigned the debt in connection with the subject policy to Plaintiff. UMF No. 8; Bermudez Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. 7.
Next, Plaintiff has shown that SCIF performed its obligations under the contract because the subject policy was in effect during the relevant periods. Ibid. Defendant consequently breached the provisions of the insurance policy on September 16, 2022 when he failed to make the required insurance premium payment to SCIF in compliance with the subject policy, and Defendant has not cured his default. UMF Nos. 6-7; Bermudez Decl. ¶¶ 7-11, Exhs. 4-7; Chavira Decl., Exh. 1; Brunson Decl., Exh. 1.
In terms of damages, due to the breach, the amount due and owing is $17,111.12. Ibid. This amount was calculated based on Defendant’s payroll information that he provided to SCIF. UMF Nos. 4-5; Brunson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. 1. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks interest at the legal rate of 10% pursuant to Civil Code § 3289 and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.
Lastly, Plaintiff contends that there is no defense to Defendant’s breach. “It is well established that the pleadings determine the scope of relevant issues on a summary judgment motion.” (Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 74) “What is put in issue by a denial is limited to the allegations of the complaint ... A defense in the nature of ‘yes, those allegations are true, but ...’ is not put in issue by the denial.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 CA3d 367, 383–384.) Upon review of Defendant’s answer, it raises only two affirmative defenses: (1) no breach of contract and (2) cancellation of contract. Neither of these affirmative defenses have merit because Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Defendant did breach the contract and that the amount due was not excused.
Because Plaintiff has established each element for its breach of contract claim and shown that there is no defense to it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden in showing that it is entitled to summary adjudication as to the first cause of action. Therefore, the burden now shifts to Defendant to establish a triable issue of material fact that either Plaintiff’s claim lacks merit or there is an applicable affirmative defense. However, as stated above, Defendant has failed to submit an opposition, and as a result, Defendant is unable to meet his burden.
Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action is GRANTED.
II. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is GRANTED.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to submit a request for dismissal as to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th causes of action, as well as to the DOE Defendants (1-10).
TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE is taken off calendar.