Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01576, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01576    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 10, 2023, plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) filed this complaint against defendants Adarn Inc. dba Metro Furniture (“Adarn”), John Yueh (“Yueh”) and Yapeng Liu (“Liu”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Chase originally asserted a cause of action for breach of contract and two common counts for money lent and account stated. On November 20, 2023, Chase dismissed these two causes of action, leaving only its first cause of action for breach of contract against Defendants. On November 20, 2023, Chase filed a motion for summary judgment on its remaining claim for breach of contract. The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, 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.)

A moving plaintiff meets their 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. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, 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. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)

III.        DISCUSSION

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

Chase relies on the declaration of Shirley A. White, a Special Credits Analyst II with a corporate title of Associate, to authenticate multiple documents consisting of Chase’s loan to Adarn and the continuing guaranties executed by Yueh and Liu. (White Decl., ¶¶ 1-2.) Based on White’s declaration, Chase submits that it is undisputed that on or about December 4, 2013, Adarn entered into a borrowing relationship with Chase by executing a promissory note in the amount of $120,000. (White Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Yueh and Liu executed a continuing guaranty and guaranteed repayment of the promissory note and any renewals of the note. (White Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Additional terms applicable to this initial contract and guaranty are attached as Exhibit C to White’s declaration. (White Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. C.) On or about April 15, 2015, Adarn executed a Line of Credit Note in the amount of $250,000 and a credit agreement renewing the promissory note executed in 2013. (White Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Around the same time, Yueh executed a continuing guarantee which guaranteed payment of this renewal agreement; Liu also executed a continuing guaranty which did the same. (White Decl., ¶¶ 7-8, Exs. E-F.) White declares that Adarn has failed to pay under the terms of the Contract and is in default and attaches a document reflecting the transaction history between Defendants and Chas showing that as of October 19, 2023, Chase is owed the principal balance of $245,636.61, plus $1,750 in late fees and costs, for a total of $247,386.61. (White Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. G.) White also declares that Yueh and Liu have failed to cure Adarn’s default, causing them to default on their guaranty agreements.

Plaintiff has met its moving burden to establish the elements of its breach of contract claim. Defendants did not oppose this motion and did not raise a triable issue of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Chase is appropriate.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated this 1st day of March 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.