Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23STLC01322, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC01322, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Name: ARBAT, A LAW CORPORATION, a corporation v. ANITA ESQUIVEL MUNIZ, an Individual

Motion: Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication Against Defendant Anita Esquivel Muniz

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Arbat, a Law Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Anita Esquivel Muniz in the amount of $24,681.54, costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to serve and electronically submit a Proposed form of Judgment, consistent with this Court’s Order, within 10 court days.

On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff Arbat, a Law Corporation, a corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed three causes of action against the Defendant Anita Esquivel Muniz (“Defendant”) stemming from prior legal services conducted by Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant.

On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters in Requests for Admission Set One Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). The Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery motion, deeming its RFAs as admitted and issued sanctions in the amount $760.00 against the Defendant.

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication.

Plaintiff prays for the Court to enter summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication pursuant to CCP § 437(c) for its three causes of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff asserts that there is no material issue of fact and that it has established the elements of its breach of contract claims and that Defendant’s Answer does not set forth any factually supported defenses to Plaintiff’s claim. Thus, Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Plaintiff’s requests for the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STLC01322) (Exhibit 1); Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Exhibit 2); Declaration of Deian V. Kazachki in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Facts and Documents Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions (Exhibit 3); and the Court’s order dated November 29, 2023 (Exhibit 4), are GRANTED under Evidence Code Section 452(d) because each exhibit is a record of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

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 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.” (Id.)

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment and in the alternative summary adjudication against Defendant for each of its causes of action for breach of contract on the grounds that it has established all the elements of its claim and that based on its evidence presented, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

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 its cause of action for breach of contract.

“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.)

Plaintiff provides the following evidence. On February 04, March 30, and April 22, 2019, the parties entered into three valid contracts under which Defendant retained Plaintiff to provide Defendant with legal services in connection with a civil quiet title action, child custody and child support related matters, and a collections matter, respectively.[1] (Deian V. Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 3,6, 9; Exhs. 1,3,5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 1, 2, 3,10,11,12.) The parties agreed in the First and Second Agreement that Plaintiff would bill Defendant pursuant to the hourly rates of the individuals providing services at $200 per hour for attorney time and $55 per hour for Paralegal and Office Assistant time. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7; Exhs. 1, 3, 8, 9; RFAs Nos.1, 2, 10, 11.) The parties agreed in the Third Agreement that Plaintiff would bill Defendant pursuant to the hourly rates of the individuals providing services at $125 per hour for attorney time and $25 per hour for Paralegal and Office Assistant time. (Kazachki Decl. ¶ 10; Exhs. 5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 3, 12.) Plaintiff performed all covenants, conditions, and promises required to be performed on their part in accordance with each agreement. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 11; Exhs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12.)

Plaintiff additionally provides evidence that it issued timely and detailed invoices for the Defendant. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 11; Exhs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 13, 14, 15.) In each instance, Defendant failed to fully pay Plaintiff’s fees as they became due thus breaching each agreement. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 12, 18, 19, 20; Exhs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15.) For the First Agreement Defendant owed Plaintiff $9,465.33 plus $3,461.97 for a total amount of $12,927.30. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 12, 18; Exhs. 1, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 4, 6, 7, 13.) In the Second Agreement, Defendant owed $7,18761 plus $2,573.75 in interest for a total amount of $9,761.36. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 12, 19; Exhs. 5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14.) Finally, under the Third Agreement, Defendant owed $1,478.76 plus $514.12 in interest for a total of $1,992.88. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 12, 20; Exhs. 5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 4, 6, 7, 15.) As a result of Defendant’s breach of each agreement, Plaintiff was injured in the sum of $12,927.30, $9,761.36, and $1,992.88 respectively. (Kazachki Decl. ¶¶ 12,19, 20; Exhs. 5, 8, 9; RFAs Nos. 4, 6, 7, 15.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of production. Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that the parties entered into three agreements for legal services. Plaintiff performed all covenants, conditions, and promises required to be performed on their part in accordance with each agreement. Defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff for the services rendered as they became due. As a result of Defendants failure to pay, Plaintiff incurred a net total of $24,681.54 in damages for the three agreements breached. The Court notes that Defendant does not provide any evidence that contradicts Plaintiff’s evidence. Moreover, based on the RFA’s deemed as admitted, Defendant admits to entering the agreements with Plaintiff, owing Plaintiff the amounts specified, and failing to pay when payment was due. (11/29/23 Minute Order.) Thus, since Plaintiff has carried its burden under CCP § 437c(p)(1), Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the amount of $24,681.54, plus costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof.

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Anita Esquivel Muniz in the amount of $24,681.54, plus costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to serve and electronically submit a proposed form of Judgment, consistent with this Court’s order, within 10-court days.

The 08/22/2024 Trial date is advanced to this date and hereby taken off calendar.

[1] The Court notes that throughout both Plaintiff’s separate statement and accompanying declaration, Plaintiff essentially provides similar information regarding entering an agreement with the Defendant, Plaintiff’s performance under the agreement, Defendant’s breach under the agreement, and Plaintiff’s subsequent damage because of Defendant’s breach. For the sake of efficiency, the Court summarizes and cites to the instances identified as part of Plaintiff’s evidence.