Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV00183, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21VECV00183    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: W

TONY HASPEL v. CELINE ASHTIN, INC. DBA ALLIANCE REAL ESTATE INSPECTIONS

defendant celine ashtin dba alliance real estate inspections, inc.’s motion for summary judgment

Date of Hearing:        March 2, 2023                                   Trial Date:       April 24, 2023   

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        21VECV00183

Moving Party:            Defendant Celine Ashtin dba Alliance Real Estate Inspections, Inc.   

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Tony Haspel

BACKGROUND

On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff Tony Haspel filed a complaint against Defendant Celine Ashtin dba Alliance Real Estate Inspections, Inc. asserting a single cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to identify numerous patent defects that were serious in nature when conducting the inspection of the home Plaintiff intended on purchasing.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Celine Ashtin dba Alliance Real Estate Inspections, Inc. moves for summary judgment on the grounds Plaintiff Haspel failed to file his complaint within the two-year statute of limitations deadline from the October 17, 2018 inspection date.

Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted 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.” (CCP §437c(c).) Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “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 that cause of action.” (CCP §437c(o)(2).) A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.) Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A defendant moving for summary judgment must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (CCP §437c(p).) A defendant may discharge this burden by furnishing either (1) affirmative evidence of the required facts or (2) discovery responses conceding that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish an essential element of the plaintiff's case.

Until the moving defendant has discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come forward with any evidence. Once the moving defendant has discharged its burden as to a particular cause of action, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action. (CCP §437c(p)(2).) On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's supporting documents are strictly construed and those of his or her opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21.)

Defendant again moves for summary judgment on the grounds Plaintiff failed to file his complaint within the statute of limitations. Defendant previously brought a motion for summary judgment on the grounds there was a written agreement between the parties that contained a shortened statute of limitations period and which Plaintiff failed to comply with. The court denied the motion on the basis the agreement had not been properly authenticated nor did Defendant present evidence that the agreement was provided by Plaintiff in discovery. Defendant now moves for summary judgment on the grounds the parties entered into an oral agreement and Plaintiff missed the applicable two-year statute of limitations.

The court notes Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion claims Defendant has failed to demonstrate no written agreement between the parties actually exists. Instead, Plaintiffs point to Defendant’s Exhibit A – Alliance Inspections Confidential Inspection Report for the Subject Property dated October 17, 2018 – as the potential written agreement between the parties since it contains essential terms regarding the inspection conducted. Consequently, it appears Plaintiffs do not even know what written agreement they entered into. They did not recognize the previous written agreement Defendant attached to their motion for summary judgment and counsel for Plaintiffs, Mr. Vosburg, now simply claims Exhibit A could be construed as a written contract between the parties. Due to the nature of the pleadings, however, the court finds Defendant has failed to demonstrate no triable issue of material facts exists. As stated above, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be based either on Plaintiff failing to prove one or more elements in the complaint or Defendant having a defense to the claims in the complaint. (CCP §437c(p).) Defendant claims the agreement is now oral but fails to present any evidence of an oral agreement. Moreover, Plaintiff claims the Inspection Report could be the written agreement, which then provides a four-year statute of limitations. As a result, there is a triable issue of material fact.

The court notes Defendant cites to Civil Code section 1622 in support of their motion. “All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.” (Civ. Code §1622.) While some contracts may oral, Defendant has not demonstrated the agreement was ever oral.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.