This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/10/2020 at 08:16:41 (UTC).

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS JOSE M. ALVAREZ

Case Summary

On 12/31/2018 AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOSE M ALVAREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5305

  • Filing Date:

    12/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendant

ALVAREZ JOSE M. AKA JOSE MARIA ALVAREZ

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

STEVENSON TRACY

 

Court Documents

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

7/6/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

9/9/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

12/13/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Suzanne Baciocco in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

12/13/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Suzanne Baciocco in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Exhibit List - Exhibit List

12/13/2019: Exhibit List - Exhibit List

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

12/13/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Sirarpi Arpi Mnatsakanyan in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

12/13/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Sirarpi Arpi Mnatsakanyan in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

3/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling ON ACIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

3/4/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling ON ACIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Judgment - Judgment Summary

4/16/2020: Judgment - Judgment Summary

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

5/8/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

5/8/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/19/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

General Denial - General Denial

2/13/2019: General Denial - General Denial

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12/31/2018: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

12/31/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/31/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12/31/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Jose M. Alvarez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Jose M. Alvarez (Defendant); Total Costs: 1136.25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/29/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/03/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/29/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment Summary: Filed By: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 04/16/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling ON ACIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation against Defendant Jose M. Alvarez AKA Jose Maria Alvarez on the Complaint filed by American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation on 12/31/2018 for the principal amount of $12,500.00 and interest of $6,284.25 for a total of $18,784.25. Cost to be determined per filing of Memorandum of Costs.; Other: plus accrued interest at the statutory rate of 10%

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 03/03/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Jose M. Alvarez (Defendant); Service Date: 01/13/2019; Service Cost: 96.90; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Jose M. Alvarez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Jose M. Alvarez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Jose M. Alvarez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC15305    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Jose M. Alvarez aka Jose Maria Alvarez (“Defendant”). The action is based on Defendant’s purported breach of an indemnity agreement (the “Indemnity Agreement”) signed pursuant to the issuance of a Contractor’s Bond issued to Defendant’s Company, A & J Concrete Plus Tree Services (“A&J”). On February 13, 2019, Defendant filed a General Denial, in pro per.

On November 11, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted against Defendant. (11/06/19 Minute Order.)

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (the “Motion”) and Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint for breach of contract and common counts filed on December 31, 2018, (2) Defendant’s General Denial to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 13, 2019, (3) Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, dated and served on April 24, 2019, (4) Plaintiff’s Notice of Ruling on Motion for Requests for Admissions to be Deemed Admitted filed November 12, 2019, and (5) the Court’s November 6, 2019 Minute Order.

Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).

  1. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.)  As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

  1. Discussion

“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.) The elements of a common count cause of action are “(1) a statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment. [Citation.]” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.)

In support of its Motion, Plaintiff presents the following undisputed facts regarding the Indemnity Agreement and breach of the same:

On March 17, 2010, Plaintiff issued and executed a Contractor’s Bond, Bond No. 100117542 (the “Bond”), in the penal sum of $12,500, naming A&J as principal and the State of California as obligee. (Mot., Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) Nos. 2, 3; Exh. 1, 2, 16, 17.) In exchange, Defendant personally entered into an Indemnity Agreement with Plaintiff as surety. (Id. at No. 3.)  Pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement, Defendant agreed to indemnity Plaintiff against “all loss, contingent loss, liability and contingent liability, claim expense, including attorney’s fees, for which [Plaintiff] shall become liable or shall become contingently liable by reason of such suretyship, whether or not [Plaintiff] shall have paid at the time of demand.” (Id. at No. 4; Baciocco Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. 2.)

The Bond was in effect from March, 17, 2010 through April 14, 2014, when it was cancelled for non-renewal. (UMF No. 3; Baciocco Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1.) On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff received a proof of claim (the “Claim”) regarding improper and incomplete work to construct a covered patio and sidewalks in November 2013. (UMF. Nos. 6; Exh. 3.)

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff notified Defendant regarding the claim and asked for a response with supporting documentation if he disputed the claim. (UMF Nos. 9, 10; Exh. 4.) Plaintiff contacted Defendant by phone on December 18, 2014 to ask whether he intended to respond to the claim, but Defendant did not indicate whether he disputed the claim. (UMF No. 9; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 12.) On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff sent a second letter to Defendant regarding the claim, requesting a response within 15 days. (UMF No. 10; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. 5.) Following Plaintiff’s investigation of the validity of the Claim, it determined that it was valid and paid $12,500.00 to settle the Claim. (UMF Nos. 12, 14; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 15, 17; Exh. 7.)

On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter advising him that the Claim had been paid and requested reimbursement of the $12,500 pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement. (UMF No. 15; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 18, Exh. 8.) Plaintiff thereafter sent five notices of reimbursement due, requesting reimbursement of the $12,500. (UMF No. 16, Baciocco Decl., ¶ 8; Exhs. 9-13.) Following Defendant’s failure to respond, Plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of contract and common counts on December 31, 2018. (UMF No. 18; Exh. 14, RJN No. 1.) As a result of Defendant’s failure to reimburse, exonerate, and indemnity Plaintiff from and against liability for the Claim, and for the losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of issuing the Bond, Plaintiff has incurred damages of $12,500.00 principal, $6,284.25 interest, plus attorney’s fees and costs. (UMF No. 21-22, Baciocco Decl., ¶ 10; Exh. 18.)

This evidence carries Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof as to its claims for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant. Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of an Indemnity Agreement between itself and Defendant, Plaintiff’s performance, Defendant’s breach, and Plaintiff’s resulting damages. The burden now shifts to Defendant to demonstrate that a triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s claims. As Defendant has not opposed the instant Motion, however, they have failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issue of material fact.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.  

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC15305    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Jose M. Alvarez aka Jose Maria Alvarez (“Defendant”). The action is based on Defendant’s purported breach of an indemnity agreement (the “Indemnity Agreement”) signed pursuant to the issuance of a Contractor’s Bond issued to Defendant’s Company, A & J Concrete Plus Tree Services (“A&J”). On February 13, 2019, Defendant filed a General Denial, in pro per.

On November 11, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted against Defendant. (11/06/19 Minute Order.)

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (the “Motion”) and Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint for breach of contract and common counts filed on December 31, 2018, (2) Defendant’s General Denial to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 13, 2019, (3) Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, dated and served on April 24, 2019, (4) Plaintiff’s Notice of Ruling on Motion for Requests for Admissions to be Deemed Admitted filed November 12, 2019, and (5) the Court’s November 6, 2019 Minute Order.

Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).

  1. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

  1. Discussion

“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.) The elements of a common count cause of action are “(1) a statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment. [Citation.]” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.)

In support of its Motion, Plaintiff presents the following undisputed facts regarding the Indemnity Agreement and breach of the same:

On March 17, 2010, Plaintiff issued and executed a Contractor’s Bond, Bond No. 100117542 (the “Bond”), in the penal sum of $12,500, naming A&J as principal and the State of California as obligee. (Mot., Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) Nos. 2, 3; Exh. 1, 2, 16, 17.) In exchange, Defendant personally entered into an Indemnity Agreement with Plaintiff as surety. (Id. at No. 3.) Pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement, Defendant agreed to indemnity Plaintiff against “all loss, contingent loss, liability and contingent liability, claim expense, including attorney’s fees, for which [Plaintiff] shall become liable or shall become contingently liable by reason of such suretyship, whether or not [Plaintiff] shall have paid at the time of demand.” (Id. at No. 4; Baciocco Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. 2.)

The Bond was in effect from March, 17, 2010 through April 14, 2014, when it was cancelled for non-renewal. (UMF No. 3; Baciocco Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1.) On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff received a proof of claim (the “Claim”) regarding improper and incomplete work to construct a covered patio and sidewalks in November 2013. (UMF. Nos. 6; Exh. 3.)

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff notified Defendant regarding the claim and asked for a response with supporting documentation if he disputed the claim. (UMF Nos. 9, 10; Exh. 4.) Plaintiff contacted Defendant by phone on December 18, 2014 to ask whether he intended to respond to the claim, but Defendant did not indicate whether he disputed the claim. (UMF No. 9; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 12.) On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff sent a second letter to Defendant regarding the claim, requesting a response within 15 days. (UMF No. 10; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. 5.) Following Plaintiff’s investigation of the validity of the Claim, it determined that it was valid and paid $12,500.00 to settle the Claim. (UMF Nos. 12, 14; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 15, 17; Exh. 7.)

On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter advising him that the Claim had been paid and requested reimbursement of the $12,500 pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement. (UMF No. 15; Mnatsakanyan Decl., ¶ 18, Exh. 8.) Plaintiff thereafter sent five notices of reimbursement due, requesting reimbursement of the $12,500. (UMF No. 16, Baciocco Decl., ¶ 8; Exhs. 9-13.) Following Defendant’s failure to respond, Plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of contract and common counts on December 31, 2018. (UMF No. 18; Exh. 14, RJN No. 1.) As a result of Defendant’s failure to reimburse, exonerate, and indemnity Plaintiff from and against liability for the Claim, and for the losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of issuing the Bond, Plaintiff has incurred damages of $12,500.00 principal, $6,284.25 interest, plus attorney’s fees and costs. (UMF No. 21-22, Baciocco Decl., ¶ 10; Exh. 18.)

This evidence carries Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof as to its claims for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant. Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of an Indemnity Agreement between itself and Defendant, Plaintiff’s performance, Defendant’s breach, and Plaintiff’s resulting damages. The burden now shifts to Defendant to demonstrate that a triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s claims. As Defendant has not opposed the instant Motion, however, they have failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issue of material fact.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC15305    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 94

ACIC v. Alvarez, et al.

MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT AS ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Defendant as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On April 24, 2019, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) on Defendant Jose M. Alvarez aka Jose Maria Alvarez (“Defendant”). (Stevenson Decl. ¶ 3, citing to Exh. 1.) Because Plaintiff had not received any discovery responses to the RFA, it brought the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Defendant as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on July 1, 2019.

II. Discussion & Order

 

Because Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions to Defendant is hereby deemed admitted.

Because the Motion has been granted, monetary sanctions are mandatory under CCP § 2033.280(c). Given the simplicity of the Motion and the lack of opposition and reply, the Court awards Plaintiff $460 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as monetary sanctions against Defendant. Sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of Plaintiff serving a notice of this Order on Defendant.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.