Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV09953, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 



Case Number: 22STCV09953    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: 40

22STCV09953 SL Retail Owner, LLC v. Keisuke SC LLC, et al.

Friday, January 10, 2025

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, SL RETAIL OWNER, LLC.

 

I.       BACKGROUND

      The first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff leased retail space to Defendant, Keisuke CA Corp., (“Keisuke”) pursuant to a written lease agreement. Defendant, Christopher Au (“Au”), signed a guaranty of the lease agreement. Keisuke breached the lease agreement by failing to prepare and deliver to Plaintiff digital plans for tenant improvements as required by the lease and failed to open its business by the due date. Keisuke defaulted on its rental payment obligations, and Au failed to guaranty performance by Keisuke. Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for breach of the Keisuke guaranty against Au.

      Plaintiff entered into a second lease agreement with Keisuke CA Corp dba Ushi Ushi at the Shops at Sportsmen’s Lodge. Defendant Au signed a personal guaranty of the Ushi Ushi lease agreement. Keisuke breached its obligations by failing to deliver digital plans to Plaintiff for the improvements and failed to pay rent under the Ushi Ushi lease agreement. Au breached his guaranty obligations by failing to pay rent due by Ushi Ushi.

      Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for breach of personal guaranty against Au for both leases.

      Plaintiff requests an order for summary judgment of the entire complaint in its favor, or alternatively, for summary adjudication of each cause of action for breach of the two personal guaranties signed by Au. Plaintiff timely served the complaint on Au, who did not file an opposition.

II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

      Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (c).) In ruling on the motion, the court considers the material issues defined by the allegations of the complaint. (Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1223.) As the moving party, Plaintiff’s burden on moving for summary adjudication is to show that there is no defense to a cause of action by proving each element of the claim. If that threshold burden is established, the burden shifts to Defendant to show a triable issue of one or more material facts as to that defense. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c(p)(1).) The court strictly construes the moving party’s evidence and liberally construes those of the opposing party. All doubts are resolved in favor of the opposing party. (Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 412, 417.)

      The court does not evaluate the credibility of testimony. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 832, 840.) The court applies the three-step analysis to motions for summary judgment or adjudication: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleading, (2) determine whether the moving party established facts which negate the opponents’ claim, (3) if a defendant meets its threshold burden of persuasion and the burden shifts, determine whether the opposing party has controverted those facts with admissible evidence. (Torres v. Reardon (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 831, 836.) 

III.    DISCUSSION

      To prevail on a claim for breach of guaranty, Plaintiff must establish that there is a valid guaranty, the borrower or principal has defaulted, and the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty. (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486.) As no opposition is filed, there is no dispute of the material facts showing the formation of the Keisuke lease agreement, the formation of the Ushi Ushi lease agreement, and that Defendant Au signed a guaranty for Keisuke’s and Ushi Ushi’s failure to perform under the lease agreements. (PUF 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 25, 30.) Plaintiff sent notice for Defendants to cure the defaults, which Defendants failed to cure (PUF 9, 10, 11, 31, 33.) Keisuke and Ushi Ushi breached their obligations under both lease agreements, and Au, as guarantor, failed to pay the rents due. (PUF 22, 23, 44, 45.)

      Plaintiff successfully mitigated damages by hiring a broker at a cost of $60,148.71 to hire a new tenant who took occupancy and began paying rent on March 7, 2024. (PUF 15, 17, 37.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s damages under the Keisuke lease are $601,988.78 for unpaid rent, interest, and broker fees incurred. (PUF 20.)

      Plaintiff hired a broker to successfully find a new tenant for the space leased by Ushi Ushi. (PUF 37.) The new tenant occupied the premises and began paying rent. (PUF 38, 39.) Plaintiff sustained damages under the Ushi Ushi lease for back rent, interest, and broker fees, totaling $206,079.73 (PUF 43.) Total damage for both leases is $808,068.51.

IV.   CONCLUSION

      Plaintiff has met its threshold burden of showing it is entitled to judgment in its favor on both causes of action based on the undisputed material facts proffered and supported by the evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.