Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 22-01282003, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication – GRANTED

The unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication by Plaintiff Quick Bridge Funding, LLC (“Plaintiff”) on its third cause of action for breach of guaranty against Defendant Marcus Tisdale (“Guarantor”) is GRANTED.

Although Plaintiff’s notice of motion did not strictly comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b), the issue as set forth in the notice of motion and the separate statement are substantively the same.  It is clear Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication on the third cause of action for breach of guaranty alleged against Guarantor. 

In both summary judgment and summary adjudication proceedings, the pleadings determine the scope of the relevant issues. (Port Medical Wellness, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 153, 169.)  The standard governing motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication is settled.  “[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) 

A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. . . .”  (Id.)  “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.”  (Id. at 851.)  “A court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings, determines whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in the moving party’s favor, and if the summary judgment motion is meritorious on its face, the court will look to whether the opposition demonstrates there are triable, material factual issues.”  (Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1054.)  The opposing party must show by reference to specific facts the existence of a triable issue as to that cause of action.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850.) 

“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)(1).)  A plaintiff meets her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)  Once the plaintiff meets that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.  (Id.)

A summary adjudication motion “proceed[s] in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)  To be successful, a summary adjudication motion must completely dispose of the entire cause of action, defense, damages claim, or duty to which the motion is directed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

A “guarantor is one who promises to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another.”  (Civ. Code, § 2787.)  “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.”  (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486.) 

Plaintiff met its initial burden to prove each element of the cause of action entitling Plaintiff to judgment on its third cause of action for breach of guaranty against Guarantor Marcus Tisdale. (Plaintiff’s Material Fact No. 1-11.)  Guarantor Marcus Tisdale did not oppose the Motion and did not meet his shifted burden to show a triable issue of material fact. 

Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.