According to the allegations of the Complaint, defendant Barbara Epis (“Defendant”) retained plaintiff Dennis Brown (“Plaintiff”) to represent her in a number of legal matters specified in a retainer agreement dated February 18, 2005, which Defendant never signed. (Complaint, BC-1.) Plaintiff successfully concluded a difficult jury trial for Defendant, but Defendant has refused to pay the bill. (Complaint, BC-2.)

The Complaint, filed on February 26, 2013, sets forth the following causes of action: [1] breach of contract; and [2] common counts. On April 25, 2013, Defendant filed an Answer, which sets forth 38 affirmative defenses. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment and, in the alternative, summary adjudication of each affirmative defense.

A. Summary Judgment

Plaintiff states that he is moving for summary judgment, but he does not provide any argument or evidence in this regard. Rather, Plaintiff’s entire motion focuses on Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Although Plaintiff contends he is due $160,692.55 plus interest from December 31, 2007, Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s declaration, which appears to be a billing statement, states that the total due as of that date was $167,752. Moreover, Plaintiff’s separate statement does not set forth any material fact or cite to evidence concerning the amount allegedly owed to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met his initial burden and the motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

B. Summary Adjudication

i. Defective Separate Statement

Plaintiff’s separate statement is not in the format required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(h) because Plaintiff has not numbered the facts set forth in the separate statement. Although each affirmative defense is set forth separately in the separate statement, the facts provided for each in the section for each affirmative defense are not numbered. The Court could exercise its discretion to deny the motion on this basis. However, since this is a minor technical defect and there has been no objection on this basis by Defendant, the Court will consider the substantive merits of the motion.

ii. Substantive Analysis

Plaintiff first argues that all of the defenses asserted by Defendant with the exception of those alleging fraud are barred by the rules pertaining to an account stated. Plaintiff relies on Gardner v. Watson (1915) 170 Cal. 570, 574 for the proposition that when a stated account is admitted, it can be avoided only by averments and proof of fraud or mistake. Plaintiff has not provided evidence demonstrating that Defendant has admitted the stated account. Further, the Complaint contains a cause of action for breach of contract in addition to the account stated cause of action. Therefore, even if Plaintiff’s argument had merit, all of the affirmative defenses would remain because they are asserted against both causes of action.

Affirmative defense no. 2 states that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff provides evidence that the last day he performed legal work for Defendant for which Defendant was billed was 6/26/09 and the parties entered into a tolling agreement on 6/2/11. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication (“UMF”), 1. The First Affirmative Defense.) Defendant does not dispute these facts. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to affirmative defense no. 2.

Affirmative defense nos. 13 and 26 state that the action is barred by the statute of frauds. Plaintiff provides evidence that no part of the account stated on which this action is based was incapable of performance within one year. (UMF, 4. the thirteenth affirmative defense and 5. the twenty sixth affirmative defense.) Defendant does not dispute this fact. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to affirmative defense nos. 13 and 26.

Affirmative defense no. 3 states that the action is barred by laches. Plaintiff correctly argues that the defense of laches only applies to equitable actions, not to legal actions where the statute of limitations has not yet run. (See Bagdasarian v. Gragnon (1948) 31 Cal. 2d 744, 751.) Defendant does not dispute this and appears to concede that affirmative defense no. 3 is without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to affirmative defense no. 3.

With regard to the remaining affirmative defenses, Plaintiff simply makes conclusory statements, such as stating that a defense makes no sense or is not supported by the facts. Plaintiff cites to no authority in connection with any “arguments” made in connection with the remaining affirmative defenses. A point which is merely suggested by a party’s counsel, with no supporting argument or authority, is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion. (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 27, 35; see also Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 779, 784-785 [when a party asserts a point but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, the point is treated as waived].) Plaintiff has not met his initial burden as to the remaining affirmative defenses due to his failure to provide reasoned arguments or citations to authority. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to the remaining affirmative defenses.