Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2021-01229188, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff National Funding, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) moves for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC and third cause of action for breach of guaranty against Defendant Mitchell Eason pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c on the grounds that Defendants failed to satisfy their obligations under the applicable Loan Agreement and Guaranty.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(1): “A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her 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 cross-complainant 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)
Breach of Contract against Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC
The elements of a breach of contract cause of action are: (1) a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff. (Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1545.) “A written instrument is presumptive evidence of a consideration.” (Civ. Code, § 1614.)
Here, Plaintiff produced a declaration and related exhibits that establish each element of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC.
First, Plaintiff’s Chief Credit Officer testified that on or about April 22, 2021, Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC entered into a written business loan agreement with National Funding, whereby Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC received an original loan amount of $48,646.00. (ROA # 28, Declaration of Sandra Otero, (“Otero Decl.”), ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) The loan agreement provided for a total loan repayment obligation of $67,617.92. (Ibid.) In support of the motion, Plaintiff provided a copy of the loan agreement, attached to the Declaration of Sandra Otero as Exhibit 1. (Ibid.) Thus, a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC existed. Second, Plaintiff established that Plaintiff performed pursuant to the contract. As evidenced by Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Sandra Otero, Plaintiff funded the $48,646.00 to Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC. (Otero Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 2 and ¶ 9.) Third, Plaintiff established that, on or about June 11, 2021, Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC breached the agreement when it defaulted on the loan payments. (Otero Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC remains in default. (Ibid.) Fourth, Plaintiff suffered damages from Defendant’s breach. Defendant Eason Consulting has only paid $10,565.30 of its $67,617.92 obligation. (Otero Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 2.) Defendant Eason Consulting owes $57,052.62 on the loan and therefore Plaintiff has suffered $57,052.62 in damages. (Ibid.)
Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC did not oppose the motion and therefore did not carry its burden to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the breach of contract cause of action or a defense thereto. Defendant’s failure to oppose the motion may be treated as an abandonment of its defenses to the issues raised in the moving papers. (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)
As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC.
Breach of Guaranty against Mitchell Eason
The elements for a breach of guaranty cause of action are: (1) the guarantor guaranteed payment of a third party’s indebtedness; (2) the third party defaulted; (3) the guarantor was notified of the default and payment was demanded; and (4) the guarantor did not make payment. (Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546-1547.)
Here, Plaintiff established each element of its breach of guaranty cause of action against Defendant Mitchell Eason. First, on April 22, 2021, Defendant Mitchell Eason unconditionally agreed to guaranty in writing all the obligations and duties of Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC. (Otero Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) Second, as established in support of its motion to adjudicate its breach of contract cause of action, Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC defaulted. (Otero Decl., ¶ 6.) Third, Plaintiff notified Defendant Mitchell Eason of the default and demanded payment. (Otero Decl., ¶ 7.) Last, Defendant Mitchell Eason did not make any payments due under the agreement. (Ibid.)
Defendant Mitchell Eason failed to submit any opposition papers and therefore did not carry his burden to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the breach of guaranty cause of action or a defense thereto. The court considers Defendant’s defenses to the issues raised in the moving papers abandoned. (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)
As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to the third cause of action for breach of guaranty against Defendant Mitchell Eason.
Conclusion
Plaintiff National Funding, Inc.’s unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant Eason Consulting, LLC and third cause of action for breach of guaranty against Defendant Mitchell Eason is GRANTED in its entirety.
Prevailing party to give notice.