This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/09/2020 at 01:34:04 (UTC).

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS UMAYA RAMEN LLC.

Case Summary

On 01/23/2019 CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against UMAYA RAMEN LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0730

  • Filing Date:

    01/23/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC.

Defendant

UMAYA RAMEN LLC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FREED KENNETH

Defendant Attorney

PARK SUE YOUNG

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication; Trial Setting Con...)

10/7/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication; Trial Setting Con...)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michael Frischer

10/30/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michael Frischer

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

10/30/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication - Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication

10/30/2019: Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication - Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Larry Pallan in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

10/31/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Larry Pallan in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Rony Sandoval in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

10/31/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Rony Sandoval in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/31/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration In Support of Defendant Umaya Ramen's Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication

1/27/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration In Support of Defendant Umaya Ramen's Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication

1/27/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication

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

1/28/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Objection (name extension) - Objection PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JANE G. HWANG

1/30/2020: Objection (name extension) - Objection PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JANE G. HWANG

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

3/20/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

5/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

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

6/18/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

3/21/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/23/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/23/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/23/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/03/2021
  • Hearing08/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication: Filed By: Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 10/07/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication; Trial Setting Con...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication scheduled for 10/07/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/07/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 10/07/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/07/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication scheduled for 07/28/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 10/07/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Trial Setting Conference scheduled for 07/28/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 10/07/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2020
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 07/28/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Umaya Ramen LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • DocketProof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by: Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Umaya Ramen LLC. (Defendant); Mailing Date: 03/08/2019; Service Cost: 64.00; Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/26/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Umaya Ramen LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Umaya Ramen LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Umaya Ramen LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC00730    Hearing Date: October 07, 2020    Dept: 26

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Umaya Ramen, LLC, et al.Plaintiff Creditor Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of the third cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Umaya Ramen, LLC (“Defendant”) on January 23, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on October 30, 2019. Defendant filed an opposition on January 27, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on January 30, 2020.

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff’s assignor and now brings this action for (1) open book account for money owed for goods sold and delivered and/or services rendered; (2) account stated; and (3) breach of contract. The Complaint attaches a copy of the written agreement for linen and garment rental executed on April 4, 2013 by Keith Lukasavage on Defendant’s behalf. (Compl., Exh. 1.)

In order to prevail on a motion for summary adjudication the plaintiff has the burden of showing that there is no defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The plaintiff may show this by proving each element of the cause of action thereby entitling the party to adjudication on the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Upon this showing, the burden shifts to Defendant to show the existence of a triable issue of one or more material facts in the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

Plaintiff’s Initial Burden of Proof

In order to prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff must demonstrate through undisputed facts the following elements: (1) the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom. (Acoustics, Inc. v. Trepte Constr. Co. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 887, 913.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendant entered into a linen and garment rental agreement (“the Agreement”) with Republic Master Chefs on April 4, 2013. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 1; Pallan Decl., Exh. 1.) The agreement was signed by Keith Lukasavage in the capacity of “Consultant” on Defendant’s behalf. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 2; Pallan Decl., Exh. 1.) The initial contract term was 36 months with an automatic 60-month renewal unless cancelled upon written 60-day notice delivered to the other party by certified mail. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 3; Pallan Decl., Exh. 1, ¶ “Term of Agreement”.) Cancellation of the Agreement can be made only upon formal complaint to Republic of its failure to meet industry standards and by giving Republic 45 days to correct problem. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 4; Pallan Decl., Exh. 1, ¶¶ “General Purpose Garments” and “Customer’s Promise.”) On December 14, 2017, Defendant unilaterally cancelled the Agreement in violation of the cancellation terms. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 1; Pallan Decl., ¶6.) Per the terms of the Agreement, Defendant owes Plaintiff $6,098.03 principal and interest at the rate of 18% per annum owed from December 20, 2017. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 1; Pallan Decl., ¶10.)

This evidence carries Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof with respect to the elements of the breach of contract cause of action. The burden now shifts to Defendant to raise a triable issue of material fact with respect to the elements or a defense to the cause of action.

Defendant’s Burden of Proof to Demonstrate the Existence of a Triable Issue of Material Fact

In opposition, Defendant presents the declaration of its general manager, Jane G. Hwang. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Hwang’s declaration are overruled. The declaration disputes that Lukasavage had any authority to sign agreements on Defendant’s behalf. Hwang states that Lukasavage was a one-time, short-term contractor for Defendant in 2013 who had no actual or ostensible authority to bind Defendant. (Opp., Separate Statement Fact Nos. 1-4; Hwang Decl., ¶¶4-6.) Hwang declares that Lukasavage was never employed by Defendant and she was the only person authorized to enter into contracts for Defendant. (Opp., Separate Statement Fact Nos. 1-4; Hwang Decl., ¶¶5-11.)

An agent has the authority that the principal, actually or ostensibly, confers upon him. (Civ.Code, s 2315.) Actual authority is the authority the principal intentionally confers upon the agent or allows the agent to believe that he possesses. (Civ.Code, s 2316.) Ostensible authority, on the other hand, is the authority of the agent which the principal causes or allows a third person to believe that the agent possesses. (Civ.Code, s 2317.)

(Van Den Eikhof v. Hocker (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 900, 905.) Hwang declares she was unaware of any written agreement for linen and garments until December 2017 and that the linen products and services rented from Republic were always cash on delivery. (Opp., Separate Statement Fact Nos. 1-4; Hwang Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Finally, Hwang declares that Republic was aware she did not want to enter into a written term agreement for linen and garment services based on her refusal to sign such an agreement. (Opp., Separate Statement Fact Nos. 1-4; Hwang Decl., ¶7.)

Conclusion