Case Name:??? Miguel Chin, et al. v. Barre Barnes, et al.
Case No.:??????? 2014-1-CV-273551
- Background
This action involves a single claim for breach of contract.? Miguel Chin and Ivonne Abrajan (?Plaintiffs?) allege Barre Barnes (?Barnes?) and Vette Investments & Property Management, Inc. (?Vette?) (collectively ?Defendants?) executed an unsecured promissory note in their favor on November 22, 2010.? (Compl., ? 9.)? Plaintiffs allege Defendants promised to repay a principal sum of $155,000 plus interest at a rate of 10 percent per annum. (Ibid.)? Defendants were obligated to make interest only payments in the amount of $1,291.67 from February 1, 2011 until December 1, 2012, and to remit any remaining interest and principal on December 31, 2012. ?(Ibid.) ?They further agreed to pay a late charge of 10 percent on any installment paid more than 10 days late.? (Ibid.)? Defendants, however, failed to make any payments. ?(Id., ? 10.)? Plaintiffs thus filed the action to recover the principal sum of $155,000; prejudgment interest at 10 percent per annum from November?22,?2010; and late payment charges of $16,920.84.? (Id., p. 3:15-18.)
In December 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of their breach of contract claim and Defendants? affirmative defenses.? The Court denied the motion because Plaintiffs did not meet their initial burden of production as to each element of their claim.? While Plaintiffs met their burden as to the elements relating to Defendants liability under the promissory note, they failed to present any evidence as to the element of damages.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs? renewed motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.? Plaintiffs argue there are no triable issues of material fact as to each and every element of their claim, including damages, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.? Plaintiffs additionally reassert that Defendants? affirmative defenses lack evidentiary support.
- Discussion
- Requests for Judicial Notice
- Plaintiffs? Request for Judicial Notice
In support of their reply, Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of court records in an unrelated case involving completely different parties in which Plaintiffs? counsel (Omni Law Group, Inc.) represented one of the parties.? Specifically, Plaintiffs request judicial notice of a memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of a motion for summary judgment as well as the judgment entered thereafter.? Plaintiffs provide these court records as an example of an instance in which a judge granted a motion for summary judgment without requiring an interest calculation.
A court may take judicial notice of court records.? (Evid. Code, ??452, subd.?(d).)? ?There is, however, a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form-any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue.?? (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.)
Plaintiffs fail to identify how these documents from a completely unrelated case are in any way relevant to the case at bench.? Moreover, the Court is not bound by the rulings of other superior court judges.? Plaintiffs? request for judicial notice is therefore DENIED.
- Defendants? Request for Judicial Notice
??????????? Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of (1) the tentative ruling, adopted by the Court, denying Plaintiffs? initial motion for summary judgment and (2) the declaration of Miguel Chin, filed December 3, 2015, which Plaintiffs submitted in support of their initial motion.
A court may take judicial notice of court records that are relevant to a material issue.? (See Evid. Code, ??452, subd. (d); see also People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 422, fn. 2.)
Accordingly, the Court may take judicial notice of the declaration and tentative ruling because they are court records and are relevant to determining whether Plaintiffs properly renewed their motion.? Defendants? request for judicial notice is therefore GRANTED.
- Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication
Defendants argue, as a preliminary matter, that the Court should summarily deny Plaintiffs? renewed motion because they have not presented newly discovered facts or circumstances or identified a change in law as required to bring a successive motion for summary judgment.? (See Code Civ. Proc., ??437c, subd. (f)(2).)? ???
??????????? ?[A] party may not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.?? (Code Civ. Proc., ??437c, subd. (f)(2).)? While a court retains inherent authority to reconsider errors in its prior rulings sua sponte, a court lacks jurisdiction to consider a party?s renewed motion for summary judgment unless the party satisfies these requirements.? (See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107.)
A fact or circumstance is not considered new if the moving party knew of the fact or circumstance at the time it filed its initial motion, but simply neglected to present it. (Schacter v. Citigroup, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 726, 738, citing Bagley v. TRW, Inc. (1999) 73?Cal.App.4th 1092.)? The party must have discovered the new fact or circumstance between the time the initial and renewed motions were filed.? (Pender v. Radin (1994) 23?Cal.App.4th 1807, 1812.)? A party may not present an otherwise identical motion that has simply been ?reformatted, condensed, and cosmetically repackaged.?? (Bagley v. TRW, Inc., supra, 126?Cal.App.4th at p. 1097.)
The Court denied Plaintiffs? initial motion because they failed to present a damages calculation, thereby falling short as to their initial burden of production.? Plaintiffs now wish to be given a second turn at summary judgment by presenting new evidence they hope will cure the deficiency in their initial motion.? On its face, Plaintiffs? renewed motion is nearly identical to their first motion.? The only difference between Plaintiffs? initial and renewed motions is the additional evidence submitted to prove the damages element of their claim.
In support of their initial motion, Plaintiffs submitted the declaration of Miguel Chin, which stated in part: ?Defendants never made any of the payments that they agreed to make under the Note.? To recoup what Defendants owed under the Note, my wife commenced the herein action, and we have incurred substantial attorney?s fees to date in attempting to recover the money we loaned to Defendants.?? (Chin Decl. of Dec. 1, 2015, ? 3.)? This was the sole evidence in support of the issue of damages cited by Plaintiffs in their separate statement of undisputed facts.
In support of their renewed motion, Plaintiffs submit the following two additional pieces of evidence: (1) further testimony from Miguel Chin, who now declares the amount of interest due, total balance due, and daily interest rate and (2) a document showing monthly compounded interest and the resulting balance accrued from January 1, 2011 to May 1, 2016.? (Chin Decl. of Mar. 10, 2016, ? 3, Exh.?B.)? These documents, which make up their damages calculation, are based on the promissory note Plaintiffs submitted in support of their initial motion.? (See Chin Decl. of Mar. 10, 2016, ? 3.)
This evidence is not new or different within the meaning of the applicable law.? Plaintiffs had the promissory note, containing the interest rate and principal amount, at the time they filed their initial motion.? As the Court observed in its prior order, it appears Plaintiffs had the underlying facts and evidence to make a damages calculation, but simply failed to do so.? Plaintiffs do not argue, and there is no evidence to suggest, they could not have made this calculation before they filed their initial motion.? While Plaintiffs have now done calculated compound interest and the total amount due, their computation is not based on new facts or circumstances.
In their reply, Plaintiffs argue there were changed circumstances justifying their renewed motion.? Specifically, Plaintiffs argue this Court created a change of circumstances by requiring them to satisfy their burden on their initial motion as to each element of their claim, including damages.? According to Plaintiffs, this was a change of circumstances because the Honorable Joseph Huber granted a motion for summary judgment without requiring a calculation of interest in an unrelated case involving unrelated parties.? This argument is unmeritorious.? First, the Court is not bound by the rulings of other judges.? Second, Plaintiffs fail to articulate a change in circumstances in the case at bench arising between the time they filed their initial motion and the time they filed their renewed motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not presented new or different facts or circumstances or identified a change in law sufficient to overcome the limitation on successive motions for summary judgment.
While Plaintiffs do not explicitly argue Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2) does not apply, they assert generally that the Court stated its denial of their initial motion was without prejudice.? As such, they implicitly argue they need not satisfy the requirements of this provision.? Plaintiffs cite no authority addressing the significance of a denial of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication without prejudice.
Here, the record reflects the Court did not express any desire to reconsider its prior ruling or concern as to an error in its ruling.? At the hearing on the initial motion, the Court mentioned in passing it would deny the motion without prejudice and Plaintiffs could refile.? The Court did not articulate this in the tentative ruling as adopted, which simply states the motion is denied.? Ultimately, the Court unequivocally denied the motion and did not intend to relieve Plaintiffs of the statutory requirements for renewing a motion for summary judgment.? Plaintiffs were therefore not excused from complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2).? Since they failed to satisfy the requirements therein, their motion is improper and is DENIED.
The Court will prepare the order.