Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00217, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00217, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00217 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: C

ITRIA VENTURES, LLC v. BASEL HADDAD DBA CEE VEE LIQUOR, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00217

HEARING: 9/25/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Itria Ventures, LLC’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

This motion is unopposed as of September 23, 2024.

Factual Background

This lawsuit arises from Defendants’ alleged failure to pay Itria Ventures, LLC pursuant to the parties’ seven written agreements. Defendant Basel Haddad executed the seven agreements, known as the Future Receivables Sale Agreements (“FRSAs”), with Plaintiff Itria Ventures, LLC as the principal, officer, and/or manager of Merchant Defendants. (SSUMF, ¶¶ 5, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51, 60.) As part of the FRSAs, Haddad also executed a Guaranty (“Guaranty”) in his individual capacity as a personal guarantor of Merchant Defendants’ performance under the FRSAs. (SSUMF, ¶ 7, 19, 29, 39, 49, 58, 67.) Itria lived up to its obligations on each of the seven contracts by paying Merchant Defendants as set forth in each FRSA to meet the Merchant Defendants’ working capital needs. (SSUMF, ¶¶ 2, 12, 22, 32, 42, 52, 61.) Defendants took Itria’s money but breached the contracts by failing to remit their accounts receivable as required. (SSUMF, ¶¶ 3, 13, 23, 33, 43, 53, 62.) Defendants have suffered damage. (SSUMF, ¶¶ 4,14,24,34,44,5463.) The Complaint asserts causes of action for Appointment of Receiver (Cause of Action No. 1), Preliminary Injunction (Cause of Action No. 2), Breach of Written Contract (Cause of Action Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15), and Breach of Written Guaranty (Cause of Action Nos. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16).

Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of the following:

· On Plaintiff’s Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Fifteenth Causes of Action for Breach of Written Contract;

· On Plaintiff’s Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Causes of Action for Breach of Written Guaranty.

Legal Standard

“[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing no triable material fact issues. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a converse prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs may shift the burden of proof by submitting evidence as to every element of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Pro., § 437c, subd. (p)(1); WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4^th 525, 532.)

Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Fifteenth Causes of Action: Breach of Written Contract

As discussed above, Plaintiff asserts that Merchant Defendants Basel Haddad; Haddad Brothers W&B Enterprise, Inc.;; King Tut, Inc.; Shop Rite Liquor, Inc.; HHH Property Management, LLC; Palm Liquor Management, Inc.; Santa Fe Liquor, Inc.; Surf and Pierport Liquors, Inc.; Can Do No 2 Liquor and Market; CVCO Management DBA CV Liquor and Market; and MQOC Market DBA Can Do Country Liquor and Market breached the FRSAs by not remitting their accounts receivable as required.

To prove breach of contract, Plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Plaintiff has met the burden to prove that there is no triable issue of material fact. The burden shifts to Defendants, but the motion is unopposed.

Thus, the Court grants summary adjudication as to the third, fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fifteenth causes of action.

Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Causes of Action: Breach of Written Guaranty

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Haddad executed the guarantees as part of the FRSAs. (SSUMF, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants breached the seven FRSAs by failing to pay the Daily and Weekly Remittances and by failing to provide it with notice of insufficient funds in the Approved Accounts. (Decl. Smalbach, ¶5.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Haddad breached the Guaranties by failing and refusing to perform his obligations to ensure the other Defendants’ full, complete, and timely performance of all their obligations under each FRSA even after Plaintiff notified Defendant Haddad. (Decl. Smalbach, Exhibit O.)

Evidence that guarantor had guaranteed payment of debtor's indebtedness to creditor; debtor defaulted on its loans; creditor notified guarantor of debtor's default and guarantor did not remit any funds to creditor establishes material elements of cause of action for breach of guaranty agreement. (Torrey Pines Bank v. Super. Ct. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 813, 819.)

Plaintiff has met the burden to prove that there is no triable issue of material fact. The burden shifts to Defendants, but the motion is unopposed.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.