Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02181, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02181    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: C

SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICES, INC. vs ROSA RODRIGUEZ

Case No.: 23NWCV02181

Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 @ 10:30 a.m.

#9

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Sunrun Installation Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff Sunrun Installation Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant Rosa Rodirguez (“Defendant”) for breach of contract, among other causes of action, relating to the installation of solar panels on Defendant’s property.  The Complaint alleges that on or about August 13, 2021, Plaintiff had “completed its initial installation of the Solar System at the Subject Property; however, Plaintiff was not able to make the Solar System fully operational as Defendant refused to cooperate with and/or provide Plaintiff and/or its contractor with further access to the Subject Property so that Plaintiff could not obtain final inspection and permission to operate the Solar System.” (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff further alleges that “Defendant defaulted under the terms of the Contract and is in breach by failing to provide Plaintiff with the information, approvals and/or access to the Subject Property in order make the Solar System fully operational.” (Complaint, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $75,326.00. (Complaint, ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff moves for Summary Judgment on the grounds that no triable issue of material fact exists regarding whether Defendant breached her contract with Plaintiff. 

No Reply has been filed as of October 11, 2024. 

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute”¿(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 (Aguilar); Code Civ. Proc., § 437c (c).)¿ A plaintiff reaches its burden on summary judgment by showing prima facie evidence for each element of its cause of action.¿ Code Civ. Proc, § 437c (p); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519 (Scalf).¿

The burden will then shift to the defendant to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact for at least one element of the cause of action at issue.¿(Ibid.) 

Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment or summary adjudication and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”¿(Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)¿However, if all inferences reasonably deducible from the submitted evidence are uncontradicted by other inferences and there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c (c); Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) 

Discussion

The elements for a claim of breach of contract are: (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.” (D'Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 800.)

Plaintiff argues that there are no triable issue of material fact as to whether a contract was executed between parties and whether Defendant defaulted under the terms of the Contract by failing to provide Plaintiff with the information, approvals and/or access to the Subject Property in order make the Solar System fully operational.

In support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff presents evidence of the following:

·        On or about June 20, 2021, Defendant, for valuable consideration, made and executed a Sunrun BrightSave Agreement dated June 21, 2021. (SSUF No. 1.)

·        Defendant promised to purchase from Plaintiff all energy produced by a certain photovoltaic solar system (hereinafter the “Solar System”) installed on the real property commonly known as 648 West 16th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405 from Plaintiff at the rates set forth in the Contract. (SSUF No. 1.)

·        Pursuant to the Contract, Plaintiff would, design, install, retain ownership of, maintain and monitor the Solar System for the term of the Contract. (SSUF No.2.)

·        On or about August 13, 2021, Plaintiff had completed its initial installation of the Solar System at the Subject Property, however Plaintiff was not able to make the Solar System fully operational as Defendant refused to cooperate with and/or provide Plaintiff and/or its contractor with further access to the Subject Property so that Plaintiff could not obtain final inspection and permission to operate the Solar System. (SSUF No. 3.)

·        On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff served upon Defendant a Notice of Material Breach (“Breach Notice”) pursuant to Sections G 10(a)(i)(6) and G 12 of the Contact putting the Defendant on notice that she was in breach of Section E(5)(a) for failure to provide Plaintiff and/or its contractor access to the Subject Property for the purpose completing final inspection of and obtaining permission to operate the Solar System, and to remedy the breach on or before August 12, 2022 or Plaintiff would seeks [sic] its remedies under the Contract. (SSUF No. 5.)

·        Defendant did not timely cure the breach in response to Plaintiff’s Breach Notice as Defendant did not cooperate with or provide Plaintiff with access to the Subject Property to obtain final inspection and permission to operate to make the Solar System fully operational. (SSUF No. 6.)

·        Plaintiff has performed all conditions on its part to be performed under the Contract. (SSUF No. 7.)

·        Pursuant to Section G 10(a)(ii) of the Contract, upon default by Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to certain remedies, including, but not limited to, terminating the Contract and requiring the Defendant to pay to Plaintiff a payment equal to the prepayment of all future estimated monthly payments to be made during the initial term as set forth in exhibit A to the Contract (the “Make Whole Payment”). The Contract further provides that if Plaintiff elects to remove the Solar System, then in addition to the Make Whole Payment, Defendant will be obligated to pay to Plaintiff an amount equal to the value of any federal, state and local Incentives that Plaintiff must return as a result of such removal (SSUF No. 9.)

·        As of the date of this Declaration, the Make Whole Payment due and owing to Plaintiff under the Contract is in the amount of $75,326.00. (SSUF No. 10.)

·        Plaintiff has also incurred recoverable costs in the amount of $625.00 (“Court Costs”), consisting of filing fees in the amount of $435.00, and service of process fees of $190.00. (SSUF No. 11.)

Based on the above, the Court determines Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that no triable issue of material fact exists regarding whether Defendant is liable for breach of contract.  The burden now shifts to Defendant to raise a triable issue of material fact.

In opposition, Defendant presents evidence of the following:

·        Defendant was referred to someone named “James.” Defendant states that she and James “did not come to any verbal or written agreement.” (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 3.)

·        Defendant “found out that some contract was signed and I did not have anything to do with it, or give any permission or authority to anyone to sign on my behalf. I now believe that “James” is the same person who electronically signed the alleged contract on page 20.” (Id., ¶ 4.) 

·        “All of a sudden, and without any telephone call, notice or warning, new solar panels were being installed on the Subject Property’s units. I was in total shock and was very surprised. I had no idea how James could do this because I did not sign any documents or agree to have any work done.” (Id., ¶ 4.)

·        “I now believe James generated the contract on his own computer. I called James to find out what was going on and why he signed my name. He told me his boss was pressuring the [sic] to get people under contract if he wanted to keep his job.” (Id., ¶ 6.)

·        I demanded that he remove the panels immediately, that I did not order them, and I was not going to pay for them.  I kept demanding that the panels be removed for months. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Based on the above, the Court determines that Defendant has raised a triable issue of material fact regarding whether she is liable for breach of contract. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.