Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STLC07829, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07829    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 30

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, March 07, 2024

Case Name:                             SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICES INC. v. JOSE MENDOZA

Case No.:                                22STLC07829

Motion:                                   Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively for Summary Adjudication of Claims.  

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Sunrun Installation Services Inc.

Responding Party:                   Defendant Jose Mendoza

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Sunrun Installation Services Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to its cause of action for Breach of Contract is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          Filed on January 16, 2024                              [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 29, 2024                  [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff Sunrun Installation Services Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed four causes of action against Defendant Jose Mendoza (“Defendant”) for the following: (1) Possession of Personal Property; (2) Breach of Express Contract; (3) Unjust Enrichment; and (4) Reasonable Value.

Defendant filed his Answer on February 17, 2023.

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively for Summary Adjudication of Claims. Defendant filed in opposition on January 11, 2024. The Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the motion to March 07, 2024.

Defendant filed supplemental papers in opposition on January 16, 2024.

No reply has been filed.   

MOVING PARTY POSITION

             Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as to all four of its causes of action. Plaintiff argues that there are no triable issues of material fact as to its causes of action for breach of contract and thus it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

OPPOSITION

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not met its burden under CCP § 437(c). Specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails to show that 1) the installation work was complete per the Contract; 2) the system became fully operational; 3) the system generated energy; 4) that Defendant defaulted; and 5) Plaintiff performed all conditions on its part under the Contract.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

 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.)

II.        Discussion  

            Plaintiff moves for summary judgment against Defendant as to all its causes of action. In the alternative, Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication. Courts have held that plaintiffs moving for summary judgment bear the burden of persuasion that each element of the cause of action in question has been “proved.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 C4th 826, 850.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint alleges four of causes of action for (1) Possession of Personal Property; (2) Breach of Express Contract; (3) Unjust Enrichment; and (4) Reasonable Value. However, based on Plaintiff’s moving papers the Court interprets Plaintiff’s position is to move for summary adjudication as to its cause of action for breach of contract as it is the only issue it discusses in its moving papers. Therefore, the Court will determine whether Plaintiff has met its burden under CCP § 437c(c).

            To state a cause of action for 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.)

If a breach of contract claim “is based on alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) In some circumstances, a plaintiff may also “plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.” (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.)

Here, Plaintiff submits evidence that on or around October 20, 2017, Defendant for valuable consideration made and executed an agreement with Plaintiff. (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. A.) Based on the terms of the agreement, Defendant promised to purchase from Plaintiff “all energy produced by a certain photovoltaic solar system [Solar System] installed on the real property commonly known as 9519 Holbrook St., Pico Rivera, CA 90660 from Plaintiff” at a rate established under the contract (Id.) Plaintiff completed installation of the solar system around December 14, 2017, which became fully operational and generating energy, thereby commencing its In service Date under the contract. (Id. ¶ 5.) As a result, Plaintiff has performed all its obligations under the agreement. (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendant defaulted under the terms of the agreement when he failed to make payments when they were due. (Id. ¶ 7.) As a result of Defendant’s non payments, Plaintiff is owed $24,731.00 and has also incurred court costs in the amount of $510.00 for the following: filing fees in the amount of $370.00, and service of process fees of $140.00. (Id. ¶ 10-11.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden for its cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff submits evidence that there was an agreement between the parties, that Plaintiff performed under the agreement and that further Defendant breached his duty when he defaulted on payments. Plaintiff’s evidence notes the extent of its damages and furthermore provides the Court with a copy of the parties’ agreement.

In opposition, Defendant provides the Court with a filed separate statement in which it disputed Plaintiff’s evidence: 1) that Plaintiff had completed the installation of the Solar System; 2) that the system became fully operational; 3) that the system generated energy; 4) that Defendant defaulted; and 5) that Plaintiff performed all conditions on its part under the Contract. (Opp’n Separate Statement.) Defendant additionally provides his declaration in which he states that Plaintiff’s came to install the solar panels but left without finishing the work, leaving a lot of material around. (Jose Mendoza Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant further states that Plaintiff did not inform him of where to make payment even after he and his wife made several calls with no response. (Id.) Defendant later declared that Edison told him the system was never properly connected and was not functioning. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant avers that he has not received any benefit from the solar panels. (Id.) Further, Defendant states that he has never received a billing statement from Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s representatives. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Here, Defendant provides the Court with evidence that this is a triable issue because Defendant’s declaration evidence that Plaintiff did not finish installing the solar panels and that Defendant would later find out through his electric company that the solar panels were not functional. Defendant also provides evidence that he has not benefited from the solar panels and has not received any billing statements from Plaintiff indicating the balance owed. Therefore, because Defendant has provided evidence showing that there are triable issues of fact, Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication.

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to its cause of action for Breach of Contract is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.