Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC07370, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC07370 Hearing Date: December 21, 2023 Dept: 26
Northern California Collection Service, Inc v. Trejo,
et al.
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
(CCP §
437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Northern California Collection Service’s Motion
for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED AS TO THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion
for Summary Adjudication. No opposition has been filed to date.
Discussion
The Complaint alleges causes
of action for open book account and account stated. Plaintiff alleges that, within the last four years,
Defendant became indebted to plaintiff’s assignor, State Compensation
Insurance Fund (“SCIF”), upon
an open book account for insurance premiums for the period of October 16, 2018 through
December 3, 2020 for Policy No. 9239903, in the sum of $ 10,986.06 principal,
and interest from January 28, 2021, to the entry of judgment, at the rate of
ten percent (10) per annum, or 93.00 per day, which Defendant promised and
agreed to pay. (Compl., ¶4.) SCIF assigned the right, title, and interest in
this account, as necessary for collection purposes, to Plaintiff. (Id.
at ¶6.) Also, within the last four years, an account was stated by and between
SCIF and Defendant, whereby it was agreed that Defendant was indebted to
SCIF in the sum of $10,986.06 principal, and interest from January 28, 2021, to
the entry of judgment, at the rate of ten percent (10) per annum, or $ 3.00 per
day, which said Defendant promised and agreed to pay. (Id. at ¶9.) No
part of the sum owed has been paid. (Id. at ¶¶5, 10.)
Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on these two causes
of action 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].)
Request for Judicial Notice
In support of the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the court
take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on 11/ 3/ 2022; (2)
Defendant’s Answer filed on 5/ 9/ 2023; (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Have
Documents Deemed Genuine filed on 7/ 3/ 2023; (4) Court Order granting
Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Documents Deemed Genuine on 8/ 10/ 2023; and (5) the
law is if a contract has been executed on plaintiffs part, and nothing remains
but payment by the defendant, plaintiff may recover the payment under a complaint
for the common counts. The request is granted as to request numbers 1-4 as
court records. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Judicial notice of the
decisional law of this State in request number 5 is unnecessary but also
granted. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a).) Finally, although listed
separately, it appears that Plaintiff is requesting judicial notice of orders
granting summary judgment or adjudication in its favor as the assignee of SCIF
as court records under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). This request
is denied as there is no showing that any of those cases are relevant to this
action. (In re Bush (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 133, 146 [citing Cal. Rules
of Court rule 8.1115(b)(1)] [holding that judicial notice of unpublished
decisions is only permitted when “relevant under the doctrine of law of the
case, res judicata or collateral estoppel.”].)
Summary Adjudication of Open Book Account and Account
Stated
The elements of an open book account are (1) plaintiff and
defendant had financial transactions with each other; (2) plaintiff in the
regular course of business, kept [a written/an electronic] account of the
debits and credits involved in the transactions; (3) defendant owes plaintiff
money on the account; and
(4) the amount of money owed by defendant to plaintiff.
(CACI 372.) Similarly, the elements of a cause of action for account stated
are: (1) defendant owed plaintiff money from previous financial transactions;
(2) plaintiff and defendant, by words or conduct, agreed that the amount that
plaintiff
claimed to be due from defendant was the correct amount
owed; (3) defendant by words or conduct, promised to pay the stated amount to
plaintiff; (4) defendant has not paid plaintiff [any/all] of the amount owed
under this account; and (5) the amount of money owed by defendant to plaintiff.
(CACI 373.)
In support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication, Plaintiff
presents the following undisputed facts. SCIF provided worker’s compensation
insurance to Defendant under Policy No. 9239903 from October 16, 2018 through
December 3, 2020. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Innis Decl., ¶¶4-13,
21-22, 27-28 and Exhs. 2-5, 7-8, 10-11.) Defendant paid a deposit premium and
made payments in the amount of $3,344.00. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact
Nos. 2-3; Exhs. 1, 6, 19-20.) For the coverage period of October 16, 2018 to
October 16, 2019, SCIF sent Defendant a bill for $8,147.12, of which Defendant
has paid nothing. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 4-5; Exhs. 1, 6,
19-20.) During the coverage period of October 16, 2019 through October 16,
2020, Mr. Trejo received a $55.40 credit and was sent a bill for $1,970.00.
(Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 6-7; Exhs. 1, 6, 19-20.) Defendant paid
nothing on the $1,970.00 bill. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 8; Exh.
1.) During the coverage period of October 16, 2020 to December 3, 2020, Defendant
received a $283.57 credit and was sent a bill for $2,555.37. (Motion, Separate
Statement, Fact Nos. 10-11; Exhs. 1, 12, 19-20.) The policy was cancelled on December
3, 2020 and Defendant did not pay anything on the $2,555.37 bill. (Motion,
Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 9, 12; Exhs. 1, 13.) Defendant’s deposit premium
of $1,686.43 was applied to the oldest bill, lowering the balance from
$8,147.12 to $6,460.69. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 13; Exhs. 1, 14.)
The remaining balance of $10,986.06 was assigned by SCIF to Plaintiff for
collection. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 14; Exhs. 1, 14, 15, 16.)
Defendant has paid nothing towards the final balance of $10,986.06. (Motion,
Separate Statement, Fact No. 15; Exh. 15.)
This evidence carries
Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof as to its claims for open book account and
account stated against Defendant. Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of financial
transactions between the parties, of which Plaintiff kept a written account of
the debits and credits, that Defendant owes money on the account, and the
amount owed. Defendant also agreed that the amount owed is correct by failing
to dispute it. (See Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17,
25.) The burden now shifts to
Defendant to demonstrate that a triable issue of material fact exists as to
Plaintiff’s claims. As no opposition has been filed, however, Defendant has
failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issue of material fact.
Conclusion
Therefore, Plaintiff Northern
California Collection Service’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED AS
TO THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A PROPOSED
JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.