Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC07120, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC07120    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: 26

Johnson & Johnson LLP v. Salas, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Plaintiff Johnson & Johnson LLP’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Johnson & Johnson LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Andrew Salas (“Defendant Salas”) and Matthew Teutimez (“Defendant Teutimez”) on September 30, 2021. Default was entered against Defendant Salas on December 20, 2021. Defendant Teutimez filed an Answer on December 27, 2021.

On December 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted against Defendant Teutimez. (Minute Order, 12/05/22.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, on December 15, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract against Defendants. Specifically, that on January 19, 2020, the parties entered into a retainer agreement whereby Plaintiff would provide legal services to Defendants for the case involving Defendants’ entity, Kizh Nation Resource Management (“KNRM”) and Emilio Reyes (“LASC Case No. BC724250”.) (Compl., ¶¶8-9.) In accordance with the retainer agreement, Plaintiff provided legal services until October 2020 for which Defendants were obligated to pay. (Id. at ¶¶9-11.) Defendants breached the retainer agreement by failing to pay the last invoice, in the amount of $15,184.40. (Id. at ¶¶15-18.)

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. On a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of a particular cause of action, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense by proving each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Additionally, in ruling on the Motion, the Court must view the “evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843].)

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach (or anticipatory breach); and (4) resulting damage. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication of this cause of action on the grounds that Defendant Teutimez has admitted to all the facts that demonstrate the above elements.

Plaintiff presents evidence to demonstrate that no triable issues exist regarding the following material facts: Defendant Teutimez admits that they retained Plaintiff to represent KNRM in Emilio Reyes v. Lorraine Ann Escobar, LASC Case No. BC724250. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1.; Johnson Decl., Exh. 1 [Req. 1, 2], Exh. 2, Exh. 3.) Defendant Teutimez admits Plaintiff performed legal services as provided for in the retainer agreement from January 23, 2020 to October 26, 2020. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; Johnson Decl., Exh 1 [Req. 4]; Exh. 2.) Defendant Teutimez admits they are obligated to pay Plaintiff for the legal services provided under the retainer agreement. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 3; Johnson Decl., Exh 1 [Req. 5]; Exh. 2.) Finally, Defendant Teutimez admits they have not paid for legal services in the amount of $15,184.40. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact. No. 4; .Exh 1 [Req. 6, 7]; Exh. 2.)

These admissions demonstrate the elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are undisputed. Specifically, the existence of a contract between the parties (the retainer agreement), Plaintiff’s performance of its obligation to provide legal services under the retainer agreement, Defendant Teutimez’s breach by failing to pay for all the legal services and resulting damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $15,184.40. This carries Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof regarding the breach of contract cause of action. The burden now shifts to Defendant Teutimez to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to any of these elements. To date, however, no opposition to the Motion has been filed to demonstrate the existence of any such triable issue.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Johnson & Johnson LLP’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.