Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01750, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01750 Hearing Date: November 29, 2023 Dept: C
Bristol Central v. espinal
CASE NO.: 22NWCV01750
HEARING: 11/29/23 @ 10:30 AM
#5
Plaintiff Bristol Central, LP’s Motion for
Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Plaintiff Bristol Central, LP (Plaintiff) moves
for summary adjudication as to its First Cause of Action for Breach of
Contract.
The Motion is unopposed.
Plaintiff
filed this breach of lease action alleging breach of contract and common counts
causes of action regarding a commercial property located at 14329 Woodruff
Avenue, Suite B/C, Bellflower, CA 90706 (the Property).
Plaintiff
leased the Property on January 28, 2018 to Marlon Dadia. On January 22, 2019,
Mr. Dadia assigned the lease to Defendant Roneida Espinal (Defendant) with
Plaintiff’s permission. The lease expired in “early-2021” and Defendant
continued to occupy the premises on a month-to-month basis after that time. Defendant
stipulated to entry of judgment in the unlawful detainer action and vacated the
Property earlier in 2023.
This
Court deemed matters admitted by Defendant on July 25, 2023 after Defendant
failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Requests for Admission
(RFAs) required that Defendant admit that the Shopping Center Lease and
Assignment of the Lease were genuine (Request for Admission of Genuineness of
Documents (RFAGD) Nos. 1-2); that Defendant occupied the Property since
December 2020 (RFA 1); that Defendant failed to pay rent, adjustments, or late
charges from December 2020 to 2023 (RFA Nos. 2-28); that the Lease expired in
2021 and was not extended (RFA Nos. 29-30); that Defendant breached the Lease
and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to both causes of action (RFA Nos.
31-33); and that Defendant has no defenses to Plaintiff’s causes of action (RFA
Nos. 34-35.)
Undisputed
Material Facts
Plaintiff
and Defendant entered into a contract. (UMF 2.) Plaintiff performed its
obligations under the contract. (UMF 3.) Defendant failed to pay rent. (UMF 4.)
Defendant’s nonpayment of rent harmed Plaintiff. (UMF 5-6.) Defendant owes
$86,183.71 under the contract for rent and late fees and $15,073.76 in
prejudgment interest. (UMF 7-8.)
Legal
Standard
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.) CCP Section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary
judgment 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.) “The function of
the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the
issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether
there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the
pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67,
citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367,
381-382.)
The
City’s initial burden of proof, in moving for summary judgment, does not
include disproving affirmative defenses, but instead involves proving each
element of a cause of action. (Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual
Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 564.)
Once
a moving party has satisfied the initial burden of proof, the burden “shifts to
the opposing party to show, by responsive separate statement and admissible
evidence, that triable issues of fact exist.” (Ostayan v. Serrano
Reconveyance Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418, disapproved on other
grounds by Black Sky Cap., LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156, 165.)
The
initial burden rests with the side moving for summary judgment, even in the
absence of an opposition. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79
Cal.App.4th 1081, 1086.)
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication as to its
First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract. A breach of contract cause of
action requires the plaintiff prove: (1) existence of contract; (2) plaintiffs’
performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendants’ breach (or
anticipatory breach); and (4) resulting damage. (Wall Street Network, Ltd.
v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)
Here, Plaintiff and Marlon Dadia entered into a
commercial Shopping Center Lease on January 26, 2018. (Cramer Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A;
RFAGD No. 1.) On December 18, 2018, Mr. Dadia assigned the Defendant with
Plaintiff’s permission to be effective on January 22, 2019. (Cramer Decl., ¶ 7,
Ex. B.; RFAGD No. 2.) Plaintiff has performed all or substantially all of its
contractual obligations. (Cramer Decl., ¶ 10; Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 5-12; Augustini
Decl., ¶¶ 3 and 10.) Defendant has failed to pay rent from December 2020 to
2023. (Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 5-12; RFA Nos. 2-28 and 31-32.) Finally, Defendant’s
failure to pay rent has caused Plaintiff damages in the amount of $86,183.71 in
rent and late fees owed under the Lease and $15,073.76 in prejudgment interest.
(Cramer Decl., ¶¶ 3-8, Ex. A and B; Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Augustini Decl.,
¶¶11-14; RFA Nos. 2-28.)
Thus, Plaintiff has proved the elements of its
First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract. Thus, the burden shifts to
Defendant to prove a triable issue of fact. Here, Defendant presents no
evidence and has already had numerous Requests for Admission deemed admitted
against her. Thus, Defendant has failed to satisfy her burden of proving an
issue of material fact. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication
is granted.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s First Cause of
Action for Breach of Contract.