Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02166, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 24CHCV02166    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/23/25

Case #24CHCV02166

SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Motion filed on 2/18/25.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Kia Entertainment Group, Inc. and James P. Fox

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and against Defendants Kia Entertainment Group, Inc. and James P. Fox as to Plaintiff’s 1^st cause of action for Breach of Contract against Kia Entertainment and 2^nd cause of action for Breach of Guaranty against Fox in the amount of $214,486.13 in principal, plus late fees and costs of $1,172.38, and attorneys’ fees and costs of $8,165.28, for a total of $223,823.79.  Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an order granting summary adjudication as to the 1^st and 2^nd causes of action.

RULING: The request for summary judgment is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of loan made by Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff) to Defendant Kia Entertainment Group, Inc. (Kia Entertainment) which was guaranteed by Defendant James P. Fox (Fox) on or about 4/8/22.  (See Separate Statement (SS) 1-5, 7, 13-20, 22-23). 

Kia Entertainment defaulted on the loan by failing to make the January 2024 payment, and all payments due thereafter.  (SS 6, 21).  Pursuant to the loan agreement, upon default, Plaintiff is entitled to declare the Note, plus any accrued but unpaid interest, fees and other costs, immediately due.  (SS 7, 22).  The guaranty provides that in the event of default by Kia Entertainment, Fox shall pay any and all amounts due to Plaintiff under the loan documents.  (SS 23).  On or about 4/24/24, Plaintiff notified Kia Entertainment and Fox (collectively, Defendants) that there had been a default and that all sums due thereunder were immediately due and payable.  (SS 8, 24).  Defendants failed to pay the outstanding amounts due to Plaintiff under the loan documents.  (SS 9, 11, 25, 27).

On 6/12/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants for breach of contract and breach of guaranty.  On 9/26/24, Defendants answered the complaint.  As of 2/11/25, Defendants were indebted to Plaintiff under the loan documents in the principal amount of $214,486.13, plus late fees and costs of $1,172.38.  (SS 10, 26).  As of 2/14/25, Defendants were indebted to Plaintiff for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $8,165.28, incurred by Plaintiff in pursuit of its remedies under the loan documents.  (SS 12, 28).  Defendants have failed to repay any amounts currently due and owing to Plaintiff pursuant to the loan documents.  (SS 9-10, 12, 25-26, 28).

On 2/18/25, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants as to Plaintiff’s 1^st cause of action for Breach of Contract against Kia Entertainment and 2^nd cause of action for Breach of Guaranty against Fox in the amount of $214,486.13 in principal, plus late fees and costs of $1,172.38, and attorneys’ fees and costs of $8,165.28, for a total of $223,823.79.  Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an order granting summary adjudication as to the 1^st and 2^nd causes of action.  On 5/19/25, Defendants filed and served a notice of non-opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

CCP 437c(p)(1) provides:

“A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that party’s 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. Once the plaintiff or crosscomplainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”

To prevail on the breach of contract claims in this case, Plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of the contracts, (2) Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance, (3) Defendants’ breach(es) and (4) the resulting damage to Plaintiff.  Reichert (1968) 68 C2d 822, 830. 

The undisputed evidence establishes the existence of the loan contract and guaranty, Plaintiff’s performance, Defendants’ breach and Plaintiff’s resulting damages.  (SS 1-28).  Based on the foregoing, and as conceded by Defendants’ express non-opposition to the motion, Plaintiff is entitled to an order granting summary judgment in its favor. 

CONCLUSION

The request for summary judgment is granted.