Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 22STCV39841, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

1. Summary Judgment Against All Defendants including damages of $196,518.24 plus interest, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, as allowed under the subject lease and guaranty of lease;

2. Summary Adjudication of the First Cause of Action for Breach of Written Lease against Defendant Tahaira;

3. Summary Adjudication of the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Written Guaranty of Lease against Defendants Kali Christina Young Burns and Elvir Hukic.

On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff Melrose Crossing LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Tahira By KB LLC, Kali Christina Young Burns, and Elvir Hukic with two causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Lease, and (2) Breach of Written Guaranty of Lease.

According to the Complaint, the property at issue is commercial property located at 7024 Melrose Ave., Suite 200 (Unit 4-5), Los Angeles, California 90038 (the Property) that Plaintiff owns. Plaintiff alleges to have entered into a written lease agreement for the Property with Defendant Tahira on May 25, 2021 for a term of five years from June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2026. On the same date, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Burns and Hukic executed a Guaranty to promptly pay all rents under the lease. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Tahira entered into possession of the Property but failed to pay certain base rent and additional rent. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant abandoned the Property and has stopped paying rent since May 1, 2022. Plaintiff alleges they have been unable to relet the Property.

On August 10, 2023, the court held a Post-Mediation Status Conference where Defendants did not appear and Plaintiff represented to the court that they have not had contact with Defendants.

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed and served the instant motion. Defendants’ opposition was due on or before October 25, 2023. Defendants did not file an opposition.

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 2 and 3. (Evid. Code § 452(c), (h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 742-743.) Thus, “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 (citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)

When a plaintiff seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).) When a defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she has the “burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68¿Cal.App.4th 151, 162.) Summary judgment must be granted “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.)

As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿437c(f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff contends that it met its burden to show a contract, that Plaintiff performed under the contract, that Defendant Tahari breached the contract, and that Plaintiff suffered damages because of the breach. Defendants filed no opposition.

To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish (1) a contract between the parties, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damages to the plaintiff from the breach. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) “As damages are an element of a breach of contract cause of action [citation], a plaintiff cannot obtain judgment on a breach of contract cause of action in an amount of damages to be determined later.” (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 241.)

As the moving party, Plaintiff has the burden to show, through admissible evidence, that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to each element of a cause of action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff submitted the declaration of Daniel Farasat, manager of Tiger West Capital, LLC, which is the managing member of Plaintiff in support of its motion. Farasat states that he personally negotiated the terms of the May 25, 2021 lease between Plaintiff and Defendant Tahira. (Farasat Decl. ¶ 3.) Additionally, Farasat details the terms of the lease, including the agreed-upon base pay rate, the term, the security deposit, provisions for late charges. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also attached a copy of the lease. (Ibid., Exhibit 6.)

Plaintiff performed under the lease because Defendant Tahira took possession of the Property on June 1, 2021. (Farasat Decl. ¶ 5.)

Defendant Tahira breached the lease by failing to pay rent since April 2022. (Farasat Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6.)

Plaintiff demonstrated damages from Defendant Tahira’s breach. First, Plaintiff was unable to relet the Property until March 15, 2023. (Farasat Dec. ¶ 6.) However, this new lease ends on March 31, 2025, leaving fourteen (14) months on Defendant Tahira’s original lease. (Ibid.) Additionally, the new lease is for less rent than Defendant Tahira’s lease. (Id. at ¶ 7; see also Exhibit 9.) Plaintiff also incurred broker commission fees from South Park Group related to locating the new tenant. (Id. at ¶ 8; Exhibit 10.) In sum, Plaintiff calculates rental damages of $196,518.24 for the period of May 1, 2022 through May 31, 2026.[1] (Id. at ¶ 9.)

Defendant Tahira has not filed an Opposition or any objections to the instant Motion to argue that there is a genuine dispute of material fact.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to establish the existence of the lease agreement and Defendant Tahira’s breach by failing to abide by the terms of the agreement, including failing to pay rent. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $196,518.24 for the months Defendant Tahira has not paid rent.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has met its burden and is entitled to summary judgment on its cause of action for breach of written lease agreement.

Plaintiff contends that it established the existence of a guaranty, Defendants’ default, and failure of Defendants to make payment under the guaranty.[2] Defendants did not file an opposition.

“A lender is entitled to judgment on a breach of guaranty claim based upon undisputed evidence that (1) there is a valid guaranty, (2) the borrower has defaulted, and (3) the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty.” (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486).

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s claim can also be interpreted as a breach of contract claim.[3] To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish (1) a contract between the parties, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damages to the plaintiff from the breach. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) “As damages are an element of a breach of contract cause of action [citation], a plaintiff cannot obtain judgment on a breach of contract cause of action in an amount of damages to be determined later.” (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 241.)

Here, under either analysis, the court agrees with Plaintiff that there is no genuine dispute of material facts. First, Plaintiff provided the Declaration of Farasat, who as discussed above negotiated the underlying Lease and Guaranty, attached a copy of the Guaranty. (Farasat Decl. ¶ 4; Exhibit 7.) Second, Plaintiff performed because Defendant Tahira took possession of the property and Defendant Tahira defaulted because they stopped making rent payments after April 1, 2022. (Farasat Decl. ¶ 6.) Third, Defendants Burns and Hukic have not paid Plaintiff after Defendant Tahira’s default. (See Farasat Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6.) Fourth, Plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $196,518.24 for the months Defendant Tahira has not paid rent. (Farasat Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9,10.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff has met its burden and is entitled to summary judgment on its cause of action for breach of guaranty.

[1] Plaintiff also claims attorney’s fees, pursuant to paragraph 31 of the lease, but has not included the amount. (Farasat Decl. ¶ 10.)

[2] Plaintiff cites a case that includes a demand for payment as an element for this claim. However, upon reviewing the Guaranty Agreement, the parties agreed to waive this requirement. Therefore, the court will deem it met (or inapplicable).

[3] The court is not bound by the captions or labels of a cause of action in a pleading and the nature and character of a pleading is to be determined from the facts alleged, not the name given by the pleader to the cause of action. Thus, regardless of whether the complaint gives the causes of action a label imbued with personal property law meaning, it is the facts behind the label which govern the nature and character of the primary right sued upon. (Ananda Church of Self-Realization v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281.)