Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC04641, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC04641 Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 Dept: 26
Sunrun, Inc. v. Rivera, et al.
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(CCP §
437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Sunrun, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Sunrun, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action for (1) possession of personal property; (2)
breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) quantum meruit against Defendant Victor M. Rivera (“Defendant”) on July
24, 2023. Defendant filed an answer in properia persona on August 16, 2023. On
May 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. No
opposition has been filed to date.
Discussion
The Complaint alleges that
the parties entered into a lease agreement for a certain photovolatic solar
system (“the Solar System”) on February 28, 2017. (Compl., ¶4 and Exh. A.)
Pursuant to the lease, Plaintiff installed the Solar System on the real
property located at 7002 Calvin Avenue, Reseda, California. (Ibid.) In
exchange, Defendant promised to purchase all the energy produced by the
Solar System by making monthly lease payments in the initial amount of $62.00
per month, subject to a 2.5% increase annually, for a term of twenty (20)
years. (Ibid.) Plaintiff completed installation of the Solar System on
April 19, 2017. (Id. at ¶6.) Around November 19, 2019, Plaintiff noted
that the Solar System meter had stopped functioning and initiated a field
service appointment to determine the reason. (Id. at ¶¶7-8.) On
information and belief, Defendant removed, or authorized the removal of the
Solar System from the Subject Property because other solar panels and related
equipment had been installed on the Subject Property in place of Plaintiff’s
Solar System without Defendant’s knowledge or authorization. (Id. at
¶9.) Defendant served Plaintiff with a Notice of Material Breach on December
15, 2019. (Id. at ¶10 and Exh. B.) Defendant did not cure the default
and is in breach of the contract. (Id. at ¶¶11-13.) Plaintiff is
entitled to certain remedies, including, but not limited to, terminating the
Contract and requiring Defendant to pay to Plaintiff a payment equal to the
estimated prepayment of all future monthly lease payments to be made during the
initial term the Contract (the “Make Whole Payment”). (Id. at ¶14.) The Make Whole Payment due as of the filing of the Complaint
is $18,357.00. (Id. at ¶15.) The contract also provides that Plaintiff
may disconnect or take possession of the Solar System upon default. (Id.
at ¶16.) Plaintiff is entitled to immediate and exclusive possession of the
Solar System and immediate payment of the Make Whole Payment. (Id. at
¶¶18, 25.)
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the Complaint
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, which provides “[a] party may
move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the
action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or
proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) On a motion
for summary judgment, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense by
proving each element of every 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 the causes 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].)
In comparison, “[a] party may move for summary adjudication
as to one or more causes of action within an action . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Although noticed as a Motion for Summary Judgment,
Plaintiff only makes arguments with respect to the second cause of action for
breach of contract. (Motion, pp. 4:1-5:10.) Similarly, the supporting separate
statement only addresses the breach of contract cause of action. (Separate
Statement, pp. 1:18-2:21.) The moving papers do not address the first, third,
and fourth causes of action. This is a motion for summary adjudication,
mis-noticed as a motion for summary judgment. When a
notice of motion only seeks summary judgment, the Court has no authority
to summarily adjudicate claims or defenses as to which no triable issue
was raised unless requested in the notice of motion. (Homestead Sav. v.
Sup. Ct. (Dividend Develop. Corp. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.) Accordingly,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated it is entitled to summary judgment of the action.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Sunrun, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.