Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV24280, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24280    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 5, 2023                  TRIAL DATE: January 23, 2024

CASE:                         Century Recovery LLC v. Walter C. Harris, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV24280           

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Century Recovery, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 11/30/23

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract filed on July 27, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the terms of a loan agreement by failing to make payments as required by its terms.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “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. Atl. 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.) Once the moving party has met that burden, section 437c shifts the burden to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. If the opposing party cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted. (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) 

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. (Ibid.)   

Analysis

            Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the Complaint’s sole cause of action for breach of contract.

In order to prevail on a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of a contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) To constitute an enforceable contract, the terms of the agreement “must be sufficiently certain to provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to.” (Estate of Thottam (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340.) The issue of whether a contract is sufficiently definite is a question of law. (Ladas v. California State Auto Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 770 fn. 2, 23.)

As Defendant has not responded to the motion, summary judgment is warranted if Plaintiff produces evidence sufficient to establish that there is no triable issue of material fact.

1.      Valid Contract

            Plaintiff states that Defendant entered into a business loan agreement with a lending entity, LoanMe, on February 19, 2016. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact A.1-2.) Plaintiff has produced the loan documents and a record of Defendant’s electronic signature on those documents dated February 19, 2016. (See Plaintiff’s Exh. 7.) The terms of the loan granted Defendant a loan of $11,500 from LoanMe to be repaid in installments at a rate of 94% interest. (SSUMF No. 4.)

            The rate of interest upon any loan is governed by Article XV, section 1 of the California Constitution. Under this section, the absolute maximum interest rate on a loan, commercial or otherwise, is 10% per annum, save for loans made by an entity or person which is subject to an exemption enacted by the Legislature. (See Cal. Const. Art. XV § 1.) One such exemption exists for “finance lenders,” which:

includes any person who is engaged in the business of making consumer loans or making commercial loans. The business of making consumer loans or commercial loans may include lending money and taking, in the name of the lender, or in any other name, in whole or in part, as security for a loan, any contract or obligation involving the forfeiture of rights in or to personal property, the use and possession of which property is retained by other than the mortgagee or lender, or any lien on, assignment of, or power of attorney relative to wages, salary, earnings, income, or commission.

(Fin. Code § 22009; see also § 22002 [establishing the exemption].) Plaintiff has also produced LoanMe’s license from the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation designating it as a Finance Lender and Broker. (SSUMF A.5, Exh. 9.) Finally, Plaintiff has shown the chain of assignments of the loan culminating in the assignment to Century Recovery, LLC. (SSUMF A.6, Exh. 8.) Plaintiff has thus offered evidence showing the existence of a valid contract for a business loan.

2.      Plaintiff’s Performance

Plaintiff has produced documentation from LoanMe showing that the funds promised under the loan agreement were provided to Defendant pursuant to its terms. (SSUMF B.1.) Plaintiff has thus demonstrated that the lender performed its obligations under the agreement.

3.      Defendant’s Breach

Plaintiff states that Defendant made payments or obtain credits toward the outstanding loan balance up until September 1, 2018. (SSUMF C.1.) However, after that date, Defendant ceased making payments on the balance. (SSUMF C.2.) Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant has breached his principal obligations under the loan agreement.

4.      Resulting Damage

Plaintiff offers an accounting of the outstanding balance which shows that Defendant owes $11,490.07 in unpaid principal, plus $49,632.88 in unpaid interest, for a total of $61,113.95. (SSUMF D.1-3.) This evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff, who has been assigned LoanMe’s interest in the loan, has been damaged by Defendant’s failure to repay the loan pursuant to its terms.

            Plaintiff has produced evidence establishing each of the elements of its breach of contract claim. As Defendant has not responded to the motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is no triable issue of fact in this action and that Century Recovery LLC is entitled to summary judgment.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2023                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.