Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2021-0115040, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “Balboa”) seeks summary adjudication of the First, Third and Fourth Causes of Action in its Complaint against Defendants Bridget Bellingar, D.O., P.A., a Florida corporation (“Bellingar P.A.”) and Bridget Bellingar, an individual (“Bellingar”).
The unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication brought by Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action asserts Defendant Bellingar P.A. breached the terms of an Equipment Financing Agreement. (¶13-¶17 of Complaint).
The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of the contract; (2) performance by the plaintiff or excuse for nonperformance; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4) damages. (First Commercial Mortgage Co. v. Reece (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 731, 745).
In this instance, Defendant Bellingar P.A. admitted, in responses to Requests for Admission, that it executed the Equipment Financing Agreement dated November 6, 2019 and identified as Equipment Financing Agreement No. 310856-000 (the “EFA”). (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 3 thereto, at RFA No. 1). Per the EFA, Plaintiff Balboa agreed to finance the purchase of certain equipment. (Agbayani Decl. ¶3 and Exhibit 1; See also Ngo Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 1 thereto).
Defendant Bellingar P.A. also admitted that the Exhibit attached to the Requests for Admissions was genuine. (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 3 thereto, at RFA No. 2). The Exhibit included in the Requests for Admission matches the Agreement attached to the Declaration of Don Ngo. (Agbayani Decl. ¶3 and Exhibit 1; See also Ngo Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 1 thereto).
Moreover, consistent with the EFA, Defendant Bellingar P.A. admitted it agreed to six (6) monthly payments of $99.00 and then sixty (60) monthly payments of $5,051.11. (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 3 thereto, at RFAs Nos. 3-4).
Pursuant to the Declaration of Don Ngo (“Ngo Decl.”), a Legal Collector and Custodian of Records for Balboa Capital Corporation, under the terms of the EFA, Plaintiff loaned Defendant Bellingar P.A. $219,082.50, to finance equipment for the business. (Ngo Decl. ¶¶1, 4.) Ngo also declares that “BALBOA has performed all of the terms, conditions, and covenants required to be performed by BALBOA under the terms of the EFA, except as excused or prevented by the conduct of Defendant Bridget Bellingar, D.O.” (Ngo Decl. ¶10).
Ngo declares he is familiar with the record keeping procedures of Balboa and that all such records are “kept and maintained in the ordinary course of business under [his] supervision and control.” (Ngo Decl. ¶2). He further indicates that all entries reflected in these writings are made on or about the date indicated. (Id.). Moreover, Ngo states: “I have personally reviewed BALBOA’s records and files in connection with Defendants BRIDGET BELLINGAR, D.O. and GUARANTOR.” (¶2 of Ngo Declaration).
No objections were submitted to the above testimony.
Further, Defendant Bellingar P.A. admitted that as of September 5, 2021, it had not paid Plaintiff the monthly payments of $5,051.11, as required by the EFA. (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 3 thereto, at RFA No. 5). Defendant Bellingar P.A. also admits that it breached the EFA. (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 3 thereto, RFAs Nos. 6-7). Consistent with the above admissions, Ngo declares that Defendant Bellingar P.A. breached the EFA on September 5, 2021 by failing to make the payment due at that time. (Ngo Decl. ¶¶2, 7).
In short, the evidence presented by Plaintiff Balboa shows the existence of a contract, performance by Plaintiff, and a breach by Defendant Bellingar P.A., as required to support a claim for breach of contract.
Ngo’s Declaration also establishes the amount of damages: “As a proximate result of Defendant Bridget Bellingar, D.O.’s breach of the EFA, BALBOA has been damaged in the total sum of $215,789.46, plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from September 5, 2021 until the entry of judgment herein.” (Ngo Decl. ¶¶11, 23).
Per the Ngo Declaration, Plaintiff declared the entire balance due under the EFA and, additionally, “is entitled to recover all accelerated payments due under the EFA, discounted to their present value at the discount rate of three percent (3%).” (Id. at ¶9). The EFA further provides that a failure to pay any amount when due, constitutes a default and that, “Upon your default we may do any or all of the following…(c) declare all sums due and to become due hereunder immediately due and payable, all future payments discounted at 3% as calculated by us.” (Id. ¶ 4).
Ngo further declares that Plaintiff has been damaged by this non-payment, “because it paid the vendor selected by Defendants $219,082.50, only a portion of which was repaid to BALBOA.” (Ngo Decl. ¶20).
The above sufficiently demonstrates that Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount that is certain.
Finally, Defendant Bellingar P.A. admitted it has “no valid claim against BALBOA concerning Equipment Financing Agreement No. 310856-000 dated November 6, 2019.” (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 3 thereto, at RFA No. 11).
Based on all of the above, Plaintiff has established the elements of its claim for Breach of Contract against Defendant Bellingar, P.A. for breach of the EFA.
Because the motion is unopposed, Defendant Bellingar P.A. has not demonstrated a triable issue and adjudication of the First Cause of Action is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action alleges Defendant Bridget Bellingar (“Guarantor”) breached the terms of a Guaranty, executed concurrently with the EFA. (Complaint ¶¶24-27).
“A lender is entitled to judgment on a breach of guaranty claim based upon undisputed evidence that (1) there is a valid guaranty, (2) the borrower has defaulted, and (3) the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty.” (Gray1CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486).
Significantly, Defendant Guarantor admitted, in response to a Request for Admission, that she signed the Guaranty attached thereto, dated November 4, 2019. (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 4 thereto, at RFA No. 1). Defendant Guarantor also admitted the attached Guaranty attached twas genuine. (Id. at RFA No. 2). Consistent with the above, Ngo also declares that Defendant Guarantor executed a Guaranty. (Ngo Decl. ¶¶13-14 and Exhibit 1 thereto).
A review of the Guaranty indicates Defendant Guarantor guaranteed payment of the EFA executed by Defendant Bellingar P.A. (Agbayani Decl. ¶3 and Exhibit 2 thereto).
Additionally, as indicated above, the evidence demonstrates that the borrower, Defendant Bellingar P.A.,defaulted on the EFA. (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 3 thereto, RFAs Nos. 6-7). Similarly, Ngo declares: “Following a default by Defendant BRIDGET BELLINGAR, D.O. under the terms of the EFA, BALBOA demanded Defendant GUARANTOR make the payments required under the EFA.” (Ngo Decl. ¶15).
Notably, Defendant Guarantor admitted that she failed to pay the obligation due thereunder and failed to comply with the terms of the Guaranty. (Agbayani Decl. ¶4 and Exhibit 4 thereto, RFAs Nos. 3-4).
Per the Ngo Declaration, “[p]ursuant to the terms of the Guaranty, the sum of $215,789.46, plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from September 5, 2021 is due and payable to BALBOA from Defendant Guarantor.” (¶16 of Ngo Declaration). Ngo further declares that Plaintiff has been damaged by this non-payment, “because it paid the vendor selected by Defendants $219,082.50, [and] only a portion of which was repaid to BALBOA.” (¶20 of Ngo Declaration).
The above sufficiently demonstrates the elements of a breach of guaranty. Because Defendant has not opposed the instant motion and has not demonstrated the existence of a triable issue, adjudication of the Third Cause of Action is GRANTED.
With respect to the Fourth Cause of Action, “[t]he only essential allegations of a common count are ‘(1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460). “A cause of action for money had and received is stated if is alleged the defendant ‘is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum ‘for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.’” (Id.).
Here, the evidence set forth above shows Defendants Bellingar P.A. and Defendant Guarantor Bridget Bellingar, individually, are indebted to Plaintiff and have not made payment thereunder. Thus, adjudication of the Fourth Cause of Action is also GRANTED.
In sum, the Court concludes that the undisputed evidence shows that Defendants jointly and severally owe Plaintiff the sum of $215,789.46, plus 10% interest on that amount beginning on 9/5/2021 (the date of breach) through the date of the 10/31/22 hearing, which amounts to $24,889.52 – for a total of $240,678.98.
Plaintiff shall file and serve a proposed form of Judgment within 5 days.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.