Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 20CHCV00485, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00485    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51 

Date: 1/23/23 

Case #20CHCV00485 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

¿ 

Motion filed on 11/3/22. 

¿ 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Platinum Cleaning Company (“Platinum”), a partnership; Hilda Lemus, individually and as a partner of Platinum Cleaning Company; and Heber Lopez, individually and as a partner of Platinum Cleaning Company; (collectively, “Defendants”)

NOTICE: ok¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment against defendants Lemus and Lopez, and default court judgment against defendant Platinum, in favor of Plaintiff on its Complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication of issues.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is continued.

BACKGROUND 

This is a collections action wherein Plaintiff is a corporation that provides workers’ compensation and employers’ liability insurance policies. Defendants are a business partnership and individual partners thereof. Plaintiff alleges that it provided Defendants with workers’ compensation coverage through two policy agreements, issued in 2018 and 2019, and that Defendants breached said agreements by failing to pay the total premium amounts.

On 8/19/20, Plaintiff filed its complaint against defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; and (3) Open Book Account. On 9/28/20, defendants Lemus and Lopez filed their answers. On 12/7/21, default was entered against defendant Platinum.

On 5/24/22, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On 11/3/22, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment, alongside a request for dismissal of its second and third causes of action. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS 

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, 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.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”  (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 65, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment has met 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (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.)

“When an unopposed summary judgment motion establishes the absence of triable issues of fact to support plaintiff's claims, the trial court has discretion to grant the motion.” (Tire Distributors, Inc. v. Cobrae (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 538, 543.)

1.      Breach of Contract

Plaintiff’s sole remaining cause of action alleges against Defendants breach of contract. To state this cause of action, a plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Plaintiff argues that each of the elements for its breach of contract cause of action against Defendants has been satisfied. To establish the existence of the contracts, Plaintiff attaches both the 2018 and 2019 policy agreements to the declaration of James Buller, the Vice President of Cash Operations for AmTrust North America, Inc., the operating company for Plaintiff in this action. (Exs. “A” and “C” to Buller Decl.) The agreements require, inter alia, that Defendants permit Plaintiff to audit Defendants’ records in order to determine the final premium amount owed to Plaintiff. (Id., pp. 5, 16.)[1]

Plaintiff further asserts that it “has performed all conditions, covenants, promises and obligations required by Plaintiff on its part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of said 2018 Policy and 2019 Policy by issuing workers' compensation and employers liability insurance policies to Defendants as requested by Defendants.” (Buller Decl. ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff supports its allegation that Defendants breached their obligations under the 2018 and 2019 policy agreements by attaching the notices sent to Defendants requesting payment of the premium amounts in full, following the final audits. (Exs. “B” and “D” to Buller Decl.) The notices each state the outstanding balance due, and Buller declares under penalty of perjury that “Defendants failed to pay the final premium audit for [the] 2018 Policy and 2019 Policy.” (Buller Decl. ¶ 21.)

Finally, Plaintiff argues that it “was damaged by Defendants’ breach in the principal amount due and owing on unpaid invoices” in the total outstanding amount of $29,142.57. (MSJ, 8:1–4.) The amount of interest owed on the principal amount, at a rate of 10% per annum pursuant to Civil Code section 3289, totals $9,791.64. (Id., 8:6–8.) Plaintiff also asserts that it is entitled to costs in the amount of $1,764.00 under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b). (Id., 14:8–12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a final judgment in the total amount of $40,698.21.

The Court notes that Plaintiff discusses the merits of Defendants’ affirmative defenses, but declines to consider them, as such arguments are not required under the legal standard for summary judgment set forth by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(1).

            While the Court is inclined to otherwise grant the instant unopposed motion, it is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks two inapposite judgments: one against Lemus and Lopez in the total amount of $40,698.21, and one against Platinum in the amount of $0.00. If so, the relief requested would violate the one-judgment rule, which states that “there can be only one final judgment in a single action.” (Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60.)

            Based on the foregoing, the Court exercises its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h) to continue the instant hearing pending further clarification regarding this issue.

CONCLUSION 

The motion is continued.