Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC03959, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03959    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, October 19, 2023

Case Name:                             HANMI BANK, a California banking corporation v. KANG DAE CHOI, an individual and dba The Dream Healing Center; and DOES 1-100

Case No.:                                22STLC03959

Motion:                                   Motion for Summary Adjudication

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Hanmi Bank

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff ’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Hanmi Bank (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Kang Dae Choi dba The Dream Healing Center (“Defendant”) for the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) open book account; and (3) account stated.

On February 27, 2023, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

            On July 20, 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 October 16, 2023.

REPLY

            None filed as of October 16, 2023.

ANALYSIS

I.          Judicial Notice

            Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Plaintiff’s complaint filed on June 14, 2022 in this action; and (2) Defendant’s answer to the complaint on February 27, 2022 in this action.  The request is granted pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d).

II.        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 facts 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

            On August 20, 2018, Defendant executed a written Business Loan Agreement and Promissory Note (“Agreement”) in connection with a business loan in the principal amount of $20,000.00, wherein he agreed to make payment to Plaintiff in accordance with its terms.  UMF No. 1; Yancey Decl. ¶ 8, Exhs. 1-2.  Based on the terms of the Agreement, the interest rate is calculated at the prime rate plus 3%, and where there is a default, the rate increases by an additional 5%.  UMF No. 2; Yancey Decl. ¶ 8, Exhs. 1-2.  Plaintiff performed its obligations under the agreement by providing Defendant with the agreed-upon business loan of $20,000.  UMF No. 3; Yancey Decl. ¶ 9.  On April 20, 2020, Defendant defaulted on the Agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.  UMF No. 4; Yancey Decl. ¶ 10.  Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff may choose to declare the entire unpaid balance immediately due and payment in the event of default.  UMF No. 5; Yancey Decl. ¶ 11.  Despite having exercised this option, Defendant has failed to pay the entire unpaid balance.  UMF No. 6; Yancey Decl. ¶ 11, Exhs. 3-4.  Also, under the terms of the Agreement and in addition to the principal sum of $14,531.74, Plaintiff is entitled to interest in the amount of $3,418.10 and late charges in the amount of $42.30.  UMF Nos. 7-9; Yancey Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, 16, Exhs. 3-4.  Lastly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover legal expenses and attorney fees, which have amounted to $1,240.65 and $7,665.00, respectively.  UMF No. 10; Yancey Decl. ¶ 16; Tiberi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.

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.  

“A written contract may be pleaded either by its terms – set out verbatim in the complaint or a copy of the contract attached to the complaint and incorporated therein by reference – or by its legal effect. [Citations.] In order to plead a contract by its legal effect, plaintiff must ‘allege the substance of its relevant terms. This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.’ [Citation.]”  McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489.

            Here, in support of its burden, Plaintiff submits evidence to show that Defendant executed the Agreement in his personal capacity on August 20, 2018.  UMF No. 1; Yancey Decl. ¶ 8, Exhs. 1-2.  Thus, the Court finds that the evidence submitted is sufficient to show the existence of a contract between the parties. 

            Next, Plaintiff has shown that it performed its obligations under the Agreement by providing the business loan to Defendant in the amount of $20,000. UMF No.3; Yancey Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. 4.  Defendant consequently breached the agreement on April 20, 2020 by failing to make payment to Plaintiff in compliance with the Agreement, and Defendant has not cured his default.  UMF No. 4, 6; Yancey Decl. ¶¶ 10, 11, Exh. 4.  In terms of damages, due to the breach, Plaintiff elected to have the unpaid balance of $14,531.74 to become immediately due and payable.  UMF Nos. 5-7; Yancey Decl. ¶ 11, Exhs. 3-4. Moreover, pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff is entitled to interest in the amount of $3,418.10 and late charges in the amount of $42.30.  UMF Nos. 2, 8-9; Yancey Decl. ¶¶ 8, 12, 16; Exhs. 1-4.  Lastly, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees in the amount of $7,665.00 and costs in the amount of $1,240.65  UMF No. 10; Yancey Decl. ¶ 16; Tiberi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.

            Lastly, Plaintiff contends that there is no defense to Defendant’s breach because the answer admits all of the factual allegations in the Complaint and fails to set forth any affirmative defenses.  “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 is devoid of any affirmative defense.  As a result, Defendant is bound by his answer that fails to set forth a cognizable affirmative defense.

            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 is GRANTED.

III.       Conclusion

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.


The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.