Case Number: BC672762 Hearing Date: October 01, 2018 Dept: 20

TENTATIVE RULING

Judge Dalila C. Lyons

Department 20

Hearing Date: Monday, October 01, 2018

Posted on lacourt.org: September 25, 2018

Case Name: National Funding, Inc. v. Bennett

Case No.: BC672762

Motion: Summary Judgment, or alternatively Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Plaintiff National Funding, Inc.

Responding Party: *UNOPPOSED*

Notice: OK

Ruling: Plaintiff National Funding, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in its favor and against Defendant Frances Bennett d/b/a FB Designs for a total judgment in the amount of $116,736.24 is GRANTED.

If Plaintiff submits on this tentative ruling, the court will sign the proposed judgment.

Moving party to give notice.

BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff National Funding, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “National Funding”) filed the Complaint against Defendant Frances Bennett (“Defendant” or “Bennett”) d/b/a FB Designs (“FB”) and Does 1 through 10 for (1) breach of written loan agreement; and (2) breach of written guaranty. Plaintiff alleges on February 23, 2017, FB entered into a written business loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with Plaintiff, in which FB received a loan of $104,107.00 and provided a total repayment obligation of $147,831.20. On the same date, Bennett agreed to guarantee all the obligations and duties of FB under the Loan Agreement (the “Bennett Guaranty”).

On July 06, 2017, FB defaulted on the Loan Agreement by failing to make payments when due and FB remains in default. In addition to non-sufficient fund charges of $275.00, there remains a balance of $95,418.32 for a total amount owing of $95,693.32, with interest thereon. Bennett has defaulted on the Bennett Guaranty by failing to pay the outstanding balance. The Loan Agreement and the Bennett Guaranty provides for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to enforce such agreements.

Trial is presently set for January 28, 2019.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in its favor and against Defendant for a total judgment in the amount of $116,736.24 on the grounds there is no genuine issue of material fact upon which any jury could reasonably find for Defendant on the merits. Plaintiff seeks $95,693.32 as the principal amount of damages arising from the breach and $9,205.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

No opposition was filed.

ANALYSIS

I. Judicial Notice

A. Plaintiff’s Request

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

II. Summary Judgment or Adjudication

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 or establish 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).

A. First Cause of Action for Breach of Written Loan Agreement and Second Cause of Action for Breach of Written Guaranty

A cause of action for damages for breach of contract is comprised of the following elements: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1367. When the contract provides for the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action to enforce the contract and when such fees and costs “readily and accurately determinable” it is proper for such fees and costs to be part of the award of summary judgment. Hoover Community Hotel Development Corp. v. Thomson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1130, 1143

On February 23, 2017, FB entered into a written business loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with Plaintiff, in which FB received a loan of $104,107.00 and provided a total repayment obligation of $147,831.20. Undisputed Fact (“UF”) 1-2, 8-9. On the same date, Bennett agreed to guarantee all the obligations and duties of FB under the Loan Agreement (the “Bennett Guaranty”). UF 11.

On July 06, 2017, FB defaulted on the Loan Agreement by failing to make payments when due and FB remains in default. UF 4. Bennett has defaulted on the Bennett Guaranty by failing to pay the outstanding balance. UF 12. Plaintiff has performed all obligations required under the Loan Agreement and the Bennett Guaranty. UF 5, 13. In addition to non-sufficient fund charges of $275.00, there remains a balance of $95,418.32 for a total amount owing of $95,693.32. UF 6, 14.

The Loan Agreement and the Bennett Guaranty provides for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to enforce such agreements. UF 3, 10. As a result of prosecuting the instant action, Plaintiff has incurred $9,205.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. UF 7, 15. Plaintiff also seeks $11,864.92 in prejudgment interest.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its favor and against Defendant for a total judgment in the amount of $116,736.24 is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _________________ ______________________________

Honorable Dalila C. Lyons

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court