Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC05554, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC05554 Hearing Date: February 22, 2024 Dept: 26
The Hinds Law Group, APC v. California Company et al.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (1)
(CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Hinds Law Group, APC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication with respect to
Defendant Family Medical Associates, Inc., is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication
against Defendant CC on June 26, 2023. The Motion for Summary Adjudication was
denied without prejudice on August 21, 2023. (Minute Order, 08/21/23.) The
instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary
Adjudication, was filed on August 25, 2023. Defendants filed a joint opposition
on December 6, 2023 and Plaintiff replied on December 18, 2023.
On January 29, 2024, the case was transferred from
Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse to Department 26 of the Spring
Street Courthouse.
Discussion
Incorrect Name of Defendant Frontline Medical Associates,
Inc.
The Complaint names Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. as a
defendant in this action; Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. filed an answer to
the Complaint. However, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative,
Summary Adjudication, is brought against an entity named “Frontline Medical
Group, APC.” (Motion, filed 08/28/23, pp. 1:27-2:1.) Indeed, the Motion
abbreviates the entity’s name as “FMG.” (Ibid.) This appears to be a
clerical error in the Motion and the Court will refer to the relevant Defendant
as Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. (“Defendant FMA”).
Legal Standard
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment 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].)
Furthermore,
The pleadings play a key role in
a summary judgment motion. “ ‘The function of the pleadings in a motion for
summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues’ ” and to frame “the
outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.” ( FPI
Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381, 282 Cal.Rptr.
508.) As our Supreme Court has explained it: “The materiality of a
disputed fact is measured by the pleadings [citations], which ‘set the
boundaries of the issues to be resolved at summary judgment.’
[Citations.]” ( Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th
1244, 1250, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 203 P.3d 1127 ( Conroy ).) Accordingly, the
burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she
negate plaintiff’s theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is,
a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not
included in the pleadings. ( Id. at pp. 1254–1255, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 203 P.3d
1127; County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th
292, 332, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 313; Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 289, 304, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 62; see Melican v. Regents of University
of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 182, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 672 [“We do not
require [defendant] to negate elements of causes of action plaintiffs never
pleaded.”].)
(Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213
Cal.App.4th 486, 493 [emphasis added].)
Allegations in the Complaint
The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of
contract, open book account, and for work, labor, services, and materials
rendered. Specifically, that on December 9, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant CC
entered into a written engagement letter for legal services in exchange for
compensation. (Compl., ¶BC-1.) Defendant CC breached the engagement letter by
“failing to communicate with counsel, failing to pay monthly invoices, and
failing to following [sic] the legal advice of counsel.” (Id. at ¶BC-2.)
As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $13,315.91 plus ten
percent interest per annum from the date of each unpaid invoice. (Id. at
¶BC-4.) Similarly, in the last four years, Defendant CC has become indebted to
Plaintiff in the amount of $13,315.91 “for work, labor, services and materials
rendered at the special instance and request of defendant and for which
defendant promised to pay plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶CC-1.) As set forth herein,
the Complaint does not allege any facts against Defendant FMA. All facts
alleged are against Defendant CC. Accordingly, the facts raised in the instant
Motion improperly address matters outside the scope of the Complaint.
Conclusion
Therefore, Plaintiff Hinds Law Group, APC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication with respect to
Defendant Family Medical Associates, Inc., is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (2)
(CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Hinds Law Group, APC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication with respect to Defendant California Company, is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication against Defendant CC on June 26, 2023. The Motion for Summary Adjudication was denied without prejudice on August 21, 2023. (Minute Order, 08/21/23.) The instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, was filed on August 25, 2023. Defendant CC filed a joint opposition on December 6, 2023 and Plaintiff replied on December 26, 2023.
On January 29, 2024, the case was transferred from Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse to Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
Discussion
Incorrect Name of Defendant Frontline Medical Associates, Inc.
The Complaint names Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. as a defendant in this action; Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. filed an answer to the Complaint. However, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is brought against an entity named “Frontline Medical Group, APC.” (Motion, filed 08/28/23, pp. 1:27-2:1.) Indeed, the Motion abbreviates the entity’s name as “FMG.” (Ibid.) This appears to be a clerical error in the Motion and the Court will refer to the relevant Defendant as Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. (“Defendant FMA”).
Allegations in the Complaint
The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, open book account, and for work, labor, services, and materials rendered. Specifically, that on December 9, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant CC entered into a written engagement letter for legal services in exchange for compensation. (Compl., ¶BC-1.) Defendant CC breached the engagement letter by “failing to communicate with counsel, failing to pay monthly invoices, and failing to following [sic] the legal advice of counsel.” (Id. at ¶BC-2.) As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $13,315.91 plus ten percent interest per annum from the date of each unpaid invoice. (Id. at ¶BC-4.) Similarly, in the last four years, Defendant CC has become indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $13,315.91 “for work, labor, services and materials rendered at the special instance and request of defendant and for which defendant promised to pay plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶CC-1.)
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment 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].)
Plaintiff’s Burden to Demonstrate No Disputed Material Facts
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of 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.)
In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment for breach of the engagement letter, Plaintiff presents the following facts. In August 2021, Plaintiff was approached by Dr. Munir Uwaydah (“Uwaydah”), as a representative of Defendant FMG, to represent Defendant FMG in a bankruptcy proceeding. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Hinds Decl., ¶¶2-4.) Defendant FMG executed the engagement letter on or about August 2, 2021. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; Hinds Decl., ¶3 and Exh. A.) Investigation revealed that the FMG claim had been assigned to Defendant CC so Plaintiff prepared new engagement letters for Defendant CC. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 3; Hinds Decl., ¶4 and Exh. B.) Plaintiff provided legal services pursuant to the terms of the engagement letters. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 4; Hinds Decl., ¶5.) Problems arose regarding payment of attorney’s fees and costs; Defendant CC failed and refused to pay for the transcripts of the judgment debtor examinations and Plaintiff was forced to fire Defendant CC and assert its lien rights. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 5; Hinds Decl., ¶¶5-6.) On April 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted against Defendant CC. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 6; Minute Order, 04/24/23.) Defendant CC owes Plaintiff the sum of $27,474.24, plus interest at the legal rate of interest. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 11; Hinds Decl., ¶6.)
This evidence fails to carry Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof as to its claims for breach of the engagement letter against Defendant CC. Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of the agreement between itself and Defendant CC and Defendant CC’s breach by failing to pay Plaintiff as agreed. However, the resulting damage to Plaintiff is not demonstrated by the evidence. The Motion contends only that Defendant CC failed to pay for transcripts for the judgment debtor examinations in the bankruptcy proceeding. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 5; Hinds Decl., ¶¶5-6.) Proof of the cost of these transcripts is not included in the Motion. Plaintiff’s counsel provides only a conclusory statement that it is owed $27,474.24 plus interest thereon at the legal rate since August 22, 2022. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Hinds Decl., ¶6.) The Motion purports to attach a true and accurate copy of a history hill reflecting all invoices sent to Defendant CC at Exhibit C, but it is not attached. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 9; Hinds Decl., ¶7 and Exh. C.) Nor does the Motion explain whether the invoices relate to the unpaid transcripts or other unpaid services. Therefore, Plaintiff has not carried its burden of proof regarding the resulting damages from Defendant CC’s breach of the engagement letter.
Regarding the cause of action for open book account, Plaintiff must demonstrate provide a detailed statement which constitutes the principal record of one or more transactions between a debtor and a creditor arising out of a contract or some fiduciary relation and that shows the debits and credits in connection therewith, and against whom and in favor of whom entries are made. (Code Civ. Proc., §337a; Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 1334, 1343.) As noted above, the billing history is not attached. Similarly, for work, labor, services, and materials rendered, Plaintiff must show that Defendant CC is indebted to it in a certain sum. (Evans v. Zeigler (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 226, 230; Haggerty v. Warner (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 468, 475.) As discussed above, that sum is not demonstrated through the evidence.
Defendant’s Burden to Demonstrate a Triable Issue of Material Fact
Defendants filed a joint opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, making for muddled arguments and evidence. Defendant CC’s opposition arguments are summarized, as follows: (1) the only exhibit attached to the Motion is Exhibit A, the engagement letter with Defendant FMG; (2) Defendant CC never signed a retainer agreement with Plaintiff and was never billed for service by Plaintiff; (3) Defendant CC has been suspended for failing to file its annual paperwork but this is not grounds to grant the Motion, only to delay the ruling. The opposition is supported only by the declaration of Munir Uwaydah (“Uwaydah”) whose connection to Defendant CC is unclear. Uwaydah declares that they are “the person most knowledgeable concerning the matters addressed in this action as to the defendants” but offers no facts to support this statement. (Opp., Uwaydah Decl., ¶1.) The engagement letter between Plaintiff and Defendant CC was signed by its named manager, Patrick Rubeiz. (Motion, Hinds Decl., Exh. B.) In reply, Plaintiff objects to portions of Uwaydah’s declaration. The Court sustains objection nos. 5-8. Ultimately, both parties’ papers are not models of clarity but as the burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate that no triable issues of material fact exist as to its claims, the Motion is denied.
Conclusion
Therefore, Plaintiff Hinds Law Group, APC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication with respect to Defendant California Company, is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.