Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00713, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21NWCV00713 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: SEC
EBF HOLDINGS, LLC
v. GARMENTS WHOLESALE WORLDWIDE, INC.
CASE NO.: 21NWCV00713
HEARING: 07/28/22
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
#8
TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiff EBF HOLDINGS, LLC’s Unopposed Motion for Summary
Judgment against Defendant VICKY MYUNGHEE RHEE is GRANTED. The alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is
rendered MOOT.
Moving Party to give notice.
No Opposition filed as of July 26, 2022.
This action based on contractual fraud was filed by
Plaintiff EBF HOLDINGS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants GARMENTS WHOLESALE
WORLDWIDE, INC. (“Corporate Defendant”) and VICKY MYUNGHEE RHEE (“Rhee”) on
October 25, 2021.
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of
action:
1)
Breach of Payment Rights Purchase and Sale
Agreement (against Corporate Defendant only)
2)
Fraud (against All Defendants)
3)
Negligent Misrepresentation (against All
Defendants)
4)
Violation of UCL (against All Defendants)
5)
Claim and Delivery (against All Defendants) and
6)
Breach of Guaranties (against Individual
Defendant)
On January 5, 2022, Default Judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff
against the Corporate Defendant.
On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff’s unopposed Demurrer to the Rhee’s
Answer was SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for an Order
that the Truth of the Matters Specified in the Requests for Admissions
Propounded to Defendant Rhee be Deemed Admitted was GRANTED.
Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment, or alternatively
summary adjudication of the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of
action against Defendant Rhee.
A “deemed admitted” order establishes that a nonresponding
party has responded to the propounding party’s requests for admissions by
admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Party admissions are given “an unusual deference
in summary judgment proceedings. An admission is binding unless there is a
credible explanation for the inconsistent positions taken by a party.
[Citations.]” (FPI Development Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d
367, 396.) When an admission against a party’s own interest “becomes relevant
to the determination, on motion for summary judgment, of whether or not there exist
triable issues of fact between the parties, it is entitled to and should
receive a kind of deference not normally accorded evidentiary allegations in
affidavits.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1,
22.)
As indicated above, on June 28, 2022, this Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s
unopposed Motion to Deem Matters in Requests for Admissions propounded onto
Defendant Rhee Admitted. Thus, Rhee has admitted that:
·
Rhee executed the Purchase Agreement and a
Guaranty of the Purchase Agreement.
·
The Corporate Defendant is in breach of the
Purchase Agreement.
·
That when Rhee represented in writing that the
Corporate Defendant’s monthly average sales for business were $77,891.00 and
its annual sales were $934,692, Rhee knew this was not true.
·
That when Rhee representing in writing that the
Corporate Defendant’s monthly average sales for its business were $77,891.00
and its annual sales were $934,692.00, Rhee intended to mislead Plaintiff into
purchasing the Corporate Defendant’s Future Receipts for $50,000.00.
·
That when the Corporate Defendant accepted the
payment of $50,000.00 for the purchase of future receivables, Rhee never
intended for Plaintiff to collect the $75,000.00 in receivables.
·
That Plaintiff justifiably relied on Rhee’s
representations that the Corporate Defendant’s monthly average sales for its
business were $77,891.00 and its annual sales were $934,692.00 when it agreed
to purchase the Corporate Defendant’s Future Receipts for $50,000.00.
·
Rhee is in breach of the Guaranty.
“A party is bound by admissions made in the course of
discovery and, on motion for summary judgment, no further evidence of the
matters so deemed admitted is required.” (Hejmadi v. AMFAC, Inc. (1988)
202 Cal.App.3d 525, 553.)
Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that Rhee cannot
raise any triable issues of material facts and has no viable affirmative
defenses to Plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims. The
burden shifts to Rhee, who has not opposed the Motion. The unopposed Motion is
GRANTED.