Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV23256, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV23256 Hearing Date: August 12, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: August 12, 2022
CASE NAME: Ayo Remodeling & Design v. Cherlyn Joanne Patterson
CASE NO.: 21STCV23256
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MOVING PARTY: Ayo Remodeling & Design
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of August 9, 2022
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An order granting summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication, as to the first, second, and third causes of action.
TENTATIVE RULING Motion
for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Motion for Summary Adjudication is
GRANTED, in part as to the first and second causes of action, and DENIED, as to the third cause of action.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff Ayo Remodeling & Design (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Cherlyn Joanne Patterson (“Defendant”). The complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Common Counts, and (3) Foreclosure on Mechanic Lien. Plaintiff and Defendant entered a home improvement contract, where Plaintiff would remodel the Subject Property in exchange for $279,000. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff performed the obligations, except those excused from performance, under the Contract but Defendant has failed to pay the balance of $242,780.
On August 10, 2021, Defendant Patterson filed an Answer.
On November 18, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which was DENIED.
Plaintiff filed two Motions to Compel on March 28, 2022, and one Motion to Deem Requests Admitted, which all were GRANTED.
This current Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on May 24, 2022. On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition. No opposition has been filed as of August 9, 2022.
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). In analyzing such motions, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294). Thus, summary judgment or summary adjudication is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (CCP § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741).
As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the party moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520). 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). A motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be denied where the moving party's evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition or where the opposition is weak. (See Leyva v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475; Salesguevara v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.
Once the moving party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP § 437c(o)(2)). When a party cannot establish an essential element or defense, a court must grant a motion for summary adjudication. (CCP § 437c(o)(1)-(2)).
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication, on the grounds that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Plaintiff contends that the three causes of action all have been satisfied. Specifically, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment based on the Requests for Admissions that were deemed admitted previously. (Ex. 2 to Declaration of Shai Oved).
1. Breach of Contract
“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.)
Plaintiff contends that this cause of action has been satisfied. First, the contract is attached to the RFA, which indicates that Plaintiff and Defendant entered a home improvement contract. (PUF 1, 22). Second, the Plaintiff performed the contract and was excused from certain performance. (PUF 1, 16,). Specifically, the RFA No. 1 requests the Defendant to admit that Plaintiff completed all work according to the contract. Third, Defendant breached this agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff for the work completed. (PUF 2, 3, 17). Lastly, Plaintiff has suffered damages totaling $240,780.00. (PUF 2).
Defendant, who is acting pro se, has failed to file an Opposition to this matter.
“Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through [request for admissions] discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence.” (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 30). “Although admissions are dispositive in most cases, a trial court retains discretion to determine their scope and effect.” (Fredericks v. Filbert Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 272, 277.) “An admission of a fact may be misleading.” (Id.) “In those cases in which the court determines that an admission may be susceptible of different meanings, the court must use its discretion to determine the scope and effect of the admission so that it accurately reflects what facts are admitted in light of other evidence.” (Id.)
A review of the RFAs indicates that these questions are not “susceptible of different meanings.” For example, the requests ask Defendant to admit that Plaintiff completed work according to the contract, admit that Defendant failed to make progress payments, admit that Defendant owes money to Plaintiff. (Ex. 2, Dec. Oved). There are no other possible meanings as to the request that asks Defendant to admit there was a contract, there was work completed by Plaintiff, and there was no payment made.
“For summary judgment purposes, deposition answers are simply evidence…They do not constitute incontrovertible judicial admissions as do, for example, concessions in a pleading [citation omitted] or answers to requests for admissions, which are specially designed to pare down disputed issues in a lawsuit.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1522). “[T]he purpose of the admissions procedure ... is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775). Here, the RFAs are
“All that the plaintiff need do is to ‘prove[ ] each element of the cause of action.’ [Citation.]” Once the plaintiff makes an adequate initial showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to show a triable issue of fact “as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 532). Here, Plaintiff has established, through the RFAs, that each of the elements for a breach of contract have been met. As there has been no opposition filed, Plaintiff has successfully established that there was a breach of contract and no triable issues of fact remain.
Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action is GRANTED.
2. Common Counts
Plaintiff argues that the elements for common counts have been met. “Common counts is an alternate theory of recovery based on a contract that is either “implied in fact” or “implied in law.” (Katsura v. City of San Buenaventura (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 104).
Plaintiff cites to Utility Audit Co., for the contention that a “common count is proper whenever the plaintiff claims a sum of money due, either as an indebtedness in a sum certain, or for the reasonable value of services, goods, etc., furnished. It makes no difference in such a case that the proof shows the original transaction to be an express contract, a contract implied in fact, or a quasi-contract.” (Utility Audit Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 958). Here, there was a direct contract. (PUF 1). The “reasonable value of services furnished” constitutes damages under that contract. (PUF 2).
Again, as stated above, Plaintiff contends that the RFAs, which were deemed admitted, establish the basis for a common count cause of action. Also, like above, RFAs that were deemed admitted are conclusively established. Here, the RFAs indicate that there was a contract between the parties and that Defendant failed to pay what was due on that contract, which damaged Plaintiff in an amount of $240,780. (PUF 1, 2). Plaintiff has established that the second cause of action has been satisfied.
Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Second Cause of Action is GRANTED.
3. Foreclosure on Mechanic Lien
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the elements for foreclosure on a mechanic’s lien have been met. “A mechanic's lien is a claim against real property, which may be filed if a claimant has provided labor or furnished materials for the property and has not been paid. [Citation.]” (Brewer Corp. v. Point Center Financial, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 831, 839, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 555.) Thus, “ ‘[it] is a procedural device for obtaining payment of a debt [owed] by a property owner for the performance of labor or the furnishing of materials used in construction.’ [Citation.]” (Precision Framing Systems Inc. v. Luzuriaga (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 457, 464).
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that under CCP §§ 8400 and 8404, Plaintiff is entitled to a foreclosure of the Mechanic’s Lien. Under Civil Code § 8400, “a person that provides work authorized for a work of improvement…has a lien right under this chapter: (a) direct contractor.” Plaintiff provides the Contractor License as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Shai Oved, indicating that Plaintiff is a direct contractor. CCP § 8404 provides “Work is authorized for a work of improvement or for a site improvement in any of the following circumstances: (a) It is provided at the request of or agreed to by the owner.” The contract between the parties demonstrates that Defendant, the owner of the house as provided by Grant Deed, Exhibit 3 of the Shai Oved Declaration, requested home improvement.
However, Under Civil Code § 8412, a direct contractor “may not enforce a lien unless the contractor records a claim of lien after the contractor completes the direct contract, and before the earlier of the following times: (a) Ninety days after completion of the work of improvement; (b) Sixty days after the owner records a notice of completion or cessation.” Here, there is no evidence provided, either by the RFAs or by the Complaint, as to when Plaintiff’s work was completed. Without this information, there is a dispute a to whether the lien was premature or untimely.
Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Third Cause of Action is DENIED.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED, in part as to the first and second causes of action, and DENIED, as to the third cause of action.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court