Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV05861, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05861    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff 7 Melrose, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

Motion for Summary Judgment

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (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.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  For the purposes of motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, “[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.”  (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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)  “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff 7 Melrose, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order granting its motion for summary judgment against defendant Jacques Fiorentino (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract (first cause of action).    

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (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.)

The court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that there is no defense to the first cause of action for breach of contract because Plaintiff has proved each element of the cause of action entitling Plaintiff to judgment on that cause of action. 

First, Plaintiff has presented evidence to prove the existence of a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.  The original lease for the subject premises was executed on September 16, 2010, between Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, 7166 Melrose, LLC, on the one hand, and two former tenants on the other hand.  (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1; Long Decl., Ex. 2, p. 2:1-4, Pl. Requests for Admissions No. 1; Long Decl., Ex. 1 to Ex. 2 [Original lease]; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].)  On January 29, 2014, 7166 Melrose, LLC and Defendant entered into a written addendum to the original lease for the premises, and Defendant assumed all obligations of the former tenants under the lease.  (UMF Nos. 2-3, 8; Long Decl., Ex. 2, p. 2:5-16, Pl. Requests for Admissions Nos. 2-3; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].)  On September 30, 2015, (1) Bon Vivant Restaurant Group, LLC executed an “Amendment to Lease” extending the lease of the premises to September 30, 2020, and (2) Defendant executed a “Guaranty” of the written obligations of the tenants under the lease.  (UMF Nos. 4-5; Long Decl., Ex. 2, p. 3:1-9, Pl. Requests for Admissions Nos. 4-5; Long Decl., Ex. 4 [Amendment to Lease], Ex. 5 [Guaranty] to Ex. 2; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].)  On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff became the owner of the premises and was assigned all rights under any existing lease of the subject premises.  (UMF Nos. 6-7; Long Decl., Ex. 2, p. 3:10-16, Pl. Requests for Admissions Nos. 6-7; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].)  Thus, Plaintiff has presented evidence of the written guaranty and lease agreements between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand.

Second, Plaintiff has presented evidence to prove that Plaintiff performed its obligations under the lease agreements.  (UMF Nos. 9, 22; Long Decl., Ex. 2, pp. 3:21-27, 5:26, Pl. Requests for Admissions Nos. 9, 22; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].) 

Third, Plaintiff has presented evidence to prove that Defendant breached the guaranty agreement by failing to pay sums owed by the tenant pursuant to the lease.  (UMF No. 10; Long Decl., Ex. 2, p. 4:1-7, Pl. Requests for Admission, No. 10; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].)  Plaintiff has also presented evidence showing that the tenant breached the terms of the lease by failing to keep the premises in good condition and removing trade fixtures from the premises upon vacating.  (UMF Nos. 11-13; Long Decl., Ex. 2, p. 4:8-5:3, Pl. Requests for Admissions Nos. 11-13; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].)

Fourth, Plaintiff has presented evidence to prove the resulting damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $319,457.76, consisting of (1) $139,457.76 in unpaid rent, and (2) $180,000 for repairs to the premises.[1]  (UMF Nos. 14-15, 17; Long Decl., Ex. 2, p. 5:4-15, 5:19; Long Decl., Ex. 4, p. 2:19-25 [December 22, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests admitted].)

The court finds that Defendant has not met his burden to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to any element of the cause of action for breach of contract.  Defendant has not filed any opposition papers or other evidence with the court showing that Plaintiff cannot establish any element of this cause of action.      

The court finds that all of the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its Complaint against Defendant.

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff 7 Melrose, LLC’s motion for summary judgment on its Complaint against defendant Jacques Fiorentino.

The court orders plaintiff 7 Melrose, LLC to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed judgment against defendant Jacques Fiorentino no later than 10 days from the date of this order.

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re entry of judgment against defendant Jacques Fiorentino for hearing on _______________, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

The court vacates the trial set in this action for July 31, 2024, and the Final Status Conference set for July 19, 2024.

The court takes off calendar as moot plaintiff 7 Melrose, LLC’s motion for order compelling responses to plaintiff’s first set of demands for inspection and copying set for hearing on August 2, 2023. 

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re entry of default judgment against defendant Bon Vivant Restaurant Group, LLC for hearing on _______________, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

The court orders plaintiff 7 Melrose, LLC to file default judgment documents required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800 (including a proposed judgment on JUD-100) no later than_______________, 2023. 

The court orders to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 28, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court