Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV34653, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34653    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of a loan agreement. The Complaint alleges as follows.

On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) loaned Defendant Domain Integrated (“Domain”) $300,000.00 (the “Loan”). (Compl. ¶ 7.) Also on July 26, 2017, Defendant Michele Steinberg (“Steinberg”) executed a Continuing Guaranty on the Loan. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Also on July 26, 2017, Defendant Steinberg Group (“Steinberg Group”) guaranteed repayment of the Loan. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

Domain has defaulted on the loan and currently owes Chase principal in the amount of $274,533.93. (Compl. ¶ 10.) As Steinberg and the Steinberg Group have failed to cure Domain’s default, they are also in default under their respective Guaranties. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 20, 2021, Chase filed the Complaint asserting three causes of action:

1.    Breach of Express Contract;

2.    Money Lent; and,

3.    Account Stated

On January 13, 2022, Steinberg filed an Answer.

On March 18, 2022, Chase filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment.

No Opposition has been filed.   

DISCUSSION

     I.         MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Chase moves for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract.

A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (a).) “[I]f 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,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; accord Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence.  (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Neither a moving nor responding party may rely on the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings. A moving party must submit specific admissible evidence showing that the responding party cannot establish at least one element of his, her or its cause of action or defense. The responding party, to defeat the motion, must submit specific admissible evidence showing that a triable issue of material fact does exist as to that element of the cause of action or defense. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

“The “Golden Rule” on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is that “if [a fact] is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (Zimmerman, Rosenfeld, Gersh & Leeds LLP v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477, citing United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337.)

A.  First Cause of Action – Breach of Contract

Chase moves for Summary Adjudication of the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract.

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) 

Here, Chase provides a copy of the Loan showing that Domain agreed to borrow and repay Chase in the amount of $300,000.00. (UMF 1.) Next, Chase provides a copy of Steinberg’s and the Steinberg Group’s guaranties of the Loan. (UMFs 2-3.) Finally, Chase provides a copy of the Loan Account Statement showing that, as of March 9, 2022, Domain owed a balance of $274,533.93 on the Loan. (UMF 5.) Steinberg and the Steinberg Group have failed to cure Domain’s default contrary to their guarantees. (UMFs 6-7.)

Accordingly, Chase has met its initial burden by showing the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendants are in breach of their written contracts.

As Defendants fail to Oppose the Motion, they fail to demonstrate that such a triable issue of material fact exists.

Therefore, Chase’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is GRANTED.

DATED: October 19, 2022    

______________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court