Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 21PSCV00632 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00632, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00632 Hearing Date: November 14, 2022 Dept: A

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION (as of 10/25)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs is granted in the amount of $5,001.94.

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s motion to strike Defendant Yong Joon Chong’s unverified answer and enter default is deemed MOOT.

BACKGROUND

In this breach of contract action, Defendant Yong Joon Chong operated under the allegedly fictional business name of Blooming Beauty Supply. In 2005, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association granted a business line of credit to Defendant who subsequently defaulted and failed to make monthly payments. On August 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint against Defendant individually and doing business as Blooming Beauty Supply, as well as Does 1 through 20, alleging the following causes of action:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Account Stated

3. Money Lent

On September 9, 2021, Defendant filed an unverified answer titled “responding letter,” stating Defendant was unable to make payment and requesting a reasonable payment plan.

On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant’s unverified answer and enter default. On February 8, 2022, the court considered Plaintiff’s motion and continued the hearing on the ground Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer with Defendant prior to the filing of the motion. Subsequently on August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motion.

Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or adjudication is set for November 14, 2022.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

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, quoting Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “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, 67, quoting FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 367, 381-382.)

“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).) Then, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) 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.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues summary judgment is proper because Plaintiff established the elements of a breach of contract claim against the Defendant and Defendant failed to provide any defenses or opposing evidence.

To succeed on a breach of contract claim, the Plaintiff must 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.” (D’Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 800, quoting Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

In this case, Plaintiff established the existence of a contract by providing a copy of Plaintiff’s signed and approved “Acceptance Certificate for Wells Fargo Business Platinum Card and BusinessLine Line of Credit,” dated November 7, 2005. (Felix Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff also provided a copy of Plaintiff’s “BusinessLine Customer Agreement Effective November 1, 2005.” (Felix Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) According to Plaintiff’s loan workout specialist, Plaintiff last received a payment from Defendant on February 2, 2020, and charged off Defendant’s line of credit on July 12, 2020. (Felix Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff also provided a July 12, 2020 statement showing Defendant owed a balance of $74,940.40. (Felix Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 3.) Plaintiff also conducted a search of the Defense Manpower Data Center and determined Defendant is not in active military service. (Felix Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 4.)Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff proved a cause of action for breach of contract against the Defendant. Because Plaintiff’s common counts of “account stated” and “money lent” are based on the same facts as Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the court also finds they have been established for the same reasons. (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 394-395.)

In Defendant’s answer, Defendant did not provide any defenses or denials and essentially admitted Defendant owed a balance of $74,940.40. Defendant also requested a reasonable payment plan and blamed the failure to make payments on the closure of Defendant’s business. However, to the extent Defendant is attempting to assert defenses to performance, Defendant has not provided any evidence to support such a defense or establish a dispute of material fact that would bar summary judgment.

Plaintiff requests reasonable attorney fees and costs under Plaintiff’s agreement with Defendant. (Felix Decl., Ex. 2, p. 1.) Pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, the court grants Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $4,267.61 ($3,270 for a judgment of $74,940.40 plus $997.61 or 4% of the excess of the judgment over $50,000) and costs in the amount of $734.33. (Ramirez-Browning Decl., ¶ 3.)

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of $5,001.94. Judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for the total sum of $79,942.34 (74,940.40 + 5,001.94)

Because the court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s unverified answer and enter default is deemed MOOT.

Plaintiff to submit an order consistent with the court's ruling within five (5) days.