Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV01710, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV01710    Hearing Date: August 28, 2024    Dept: C

CAO CAO LLC v. DAN GOLDMAN JEWELERS & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.: 24NWCV01710

HEARING:  8/28/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Daniel Mourey’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

The motion is unopposed as of August 26, 2024.

Background

This is about a breach of commercial tenancy for which Defendant Daniel Mourey was a personal guarantor. (UMF No. 2.) According to the lease agreement attached to the complaint, SJ Premier Investments, LLC and Dan Goldman Jewelers & Company, Inc. entered into a lease agreement for part of the building known as 11761 Carson Street, Lakewood, California. Defendant Daniel Mourey guaranteed Defendant Dan Goldman Jewelers & Company, Inc.’s performance of the agreement.

Plaintiff Cao Cao LLC sues Dan Goldman Jewelers and Company, Inc., and Daniel Mourey for breach of contract. Defendant Daniel Mourey moves for summary judgment based on the following: (1) Plaintiff lacks standing; and (2) Plaintiff cannot establish a breach of contract against him.

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 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 converse prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) 

Discussion

Preliminarily, Defendant did not raise standing in his answer. But standing is a jurisdictional issue, and defendants do not waive it by their failure to raise it by demurrer or answer. (Common Cause of Calif. v. Board of Supervisors of L.A. County (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438.) Thus, the Court will adjudicate it.

The existence of standing generally requires that the plaintiff prove injury, i.e. an invasion of his legally protected interests. (See Surrey v. TrueBeginnings, LLC (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 414, 417.) Defendant argues that there is no assignment to Plaintiff from the party to which Defendant owes the guarantee, SJ Premier Investments, LLC.  Plaintiff alleges that SJ Premier Investments, Inc. is its predecessor. (Compl., ¶ 6.)  

The relevant assignment clause states the following:

“The Assignment of Ground Lease dated September 25, 2017, by and between Sang Joen Kim aka Sang Jeon Kim (“Assignor”), and CAO CAO, LLC (“Assignee”), with respect to that written lease dated 6–11-2003, under which The Williams Family Trust, dated March 3, 1995, Harold F. Williams and Bertha L. Williams, Trustors and/or Trustees leased to Makena Great American Pioneer Company, LLC which assigned its rights to Sang Joen Kim aka Sang Jeon Kim by Assignment of Ground Lease dated June 1, 2006 the real property located in the City of Lakewood, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as 11761 Carson Street (“Premises”).” (Olson Decl. ¶2, Ex. 3.)

The assignment establishes that Plaintiff was assigned the ground lease from Sang Joen Kim aka Sang Jeon Kim, not SJ Premier Investments, LLC.  Furthermore, it appears SJ Premier Investments, LLC was never in the chain of title. (Motion, p.4:1-10; Olson Decl. ¶2, Ex. 3.)  Thus, any lease agreement between SJ Premier Investments, LLC and Dan Goldman Jewelers and Company, Inc./Daniel Mourey would be invalid. 

Based on the above, the Court finds that Defendant has met his burden to show that there is no triable issue of material fact about standing. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

Because this issue is jurisdictional, the Court will not adjudicate the other issues. (Common Cause of Calif. V. Board of Supervisors of L.A. County, supra, 49 Cal.3d 432 at pg. 438.)

The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.