Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Cedarbrook Garden Grove, LLC v. New Century Home Health, Inc.", Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Cedarbrook Garden Grove, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication
Plaintiff Cedarbrook Garden Grove, LLC moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against defendant New Century Home Health, Inc. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
A plaintiff seeking summary judgment meets its 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. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(1). Once the plaintiff has met 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.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract (failure to pay rent) and breach of contract (vacating or abandoning the premises). Plaintiff alleges defendant breached a written lease agreement for a commercial property by failing to pay rent and vacating the property before the term of the lease expired. Plaintiff seeks $25,909 in allegedly unpaid rent.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges plaintiff and defendant entered into a commercial lease agreement for the real property commonly known as 12900 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 175, Garden Grove, CA 92843, for a term of 36 months commencing November 1, 2019 and ending October 31, 2022. Complaint ¶¶ 6, 9, 18. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant was to pay plaintiff $1603 per month for each of the first twelve months of the lease, $1632 per month for months 13 through 24, and $1661 per month for months 25 through 36. Complaint ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges defendant did not pay the required monthly rent beginning April 1, 2020. Complaint ¶¶ 11, 20. Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleges defendant breached the agreement by vacating and abandoning the property before October 31, 2022. Complaint ¶ 28.
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the contract; (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) the defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.
In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted the declaration of Dani Tomlins-Rodriguez. Tomlins-Rodriguez states plaintiff agreed to lease the property to defendant for $1603 per month for each of the first twelve months, $1632 per month for months 13 through 24, and $1661 per month for months 25 through 36. Tomlins-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 4. The lease term commenced on November 1, 2019 and was set to end on October 31, 2022. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5. Tomlins-Rodriguez states defendant did not pay the required rent beginning April 1, 2020; defendant vacated and abandoned the property “[i]n or about early 2021” without informing plaintiff; plaintiff was unable to find a new tenant until January 1, 2021; and “the total unpaid rental amounts in this case through January 1, 2021 equal $25,909.00.” Id. ¶¶ 7-9, 14.
Plaintiff’s damages are an element of its breach of contract cause of action. Plaintiff cannot establish “a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment without showing both the fact and the amount of damages.” Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. McGrath (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106 (italics in original). Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence proving that the amount of damages it incurred for unpaid rent between April 2020 and January 2021 equals $25,909. Tomlins-Rodriguez does not explain how she calculated that sum, and the court has been unable to replicate that sum based on the evidence submitted. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Plaintiff also seeks summary adjudication of the following issues: (1) plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for lease of the property at 12900 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 175, Garden Grove, CA 92843; (2) plaintiff did all or substantially all of the significant things that the lease required of it; (3) defendant failed to pay the rent called for under the lease; (4) defendant vacated or abandoned the property before the end of the lease term; (5) plaintiff was harmed by defendant’s failure to pay rent; (6) plaintiff was harmed by defendant’s vacating or abandoning the property before the end of the lease term; (7) defendant’s breach of the lease was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm; and (8) plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $25, 909 plus its costs of suit.
These issues do not completely dispose of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty, and thus are not proper subjects for summary adjudication. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1) (“A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”). In addition, plaintiff’s separate statement in support of its motion for summary adjudication does not comply with California Rule of Court 3.1350(b) (“If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication may make reference to and depend on the same evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion. If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts”); see also Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 743-44. Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is denied.
Plaintiff to give notice.