On 11/14/2018 FOREMAN FINANCIAL, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MIRANDA AUTO SALES, INC . 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 Disposed - Judgment Entered.
*******3901
11/14/2018
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
FOREMAN FINANCIAL INC.
MIRANDA RAYMUNDO
MIRANDA AUTO SALES INC.
LEVENTHAL JONATHAN
SIFERS JAMES S.
Court documents are not available for this case.
DocketWrit of Execution (Orange); Issued by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymundo Miranda (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Rejection - Post Judgment; Filed by: Clerk
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff)
DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymundo Miranda (Defendant); Costs: 170.60; Interest: 196.92; Service Date: 09/03/2020
DocketNotice of Entry of Order; Filed by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymundo Miranda (Defendant)
DocketUpdated -- Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment: As To Parties changed from Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant) to Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant)
DocketUpdated -- Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment: As To Parties changed from Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant) to Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant)
DocketHearing on Motion - Other Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint scheduled for 07/07/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 07/07/2020
DocketNon-Appearance Case Review Re: Bankruptcy scheduled for 08/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/08/2020
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/08/2020
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymundo Miranda (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 11/17/2018; Service Cost: 89.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant); Service Date: 11/17/18; Service Cost: 89.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant); Raymundo Miranda (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant); Raymundo Miranda (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Foreman Financial, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (Defendant); Raymundo Miranda (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 18STLC13901 Hearing Date: July 07, 2020 Dept: 26
Foreman Financial, Inc. v. Miranda Auto Sales, Inc., et al.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Foreman Financial, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
ANALYSIS:
On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff Foreman Financial, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendants Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (“Defendant MAS”) and Raymundo Miranda (“Defendant Miranda”). On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants. On February 25, 2020, Defendant MAS filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings due to its bankruptcy filing. The next day, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant MAS from the action.
Discussion
The Court, therefore, will consider the Motion for Summary Judgment only as to Defendant Miranda. The Complaint alleges that on September 9, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant MAS entered into a Used Car Dealer Agreement (“the Agreement”), which was personally guaranteed by Defendant Miranda. (Compl., ¶BC-1 and Exhs. A-B.) Plaintiff allegedly assigned Defendant MAS a Retail Installment Sales Contract (“RISC”) on June 10, 2016 with respect to a 2013 Nissan Altima. (Id. at ¶BC-2.) Defendant MAS allegedly refused to repurchase the RISC when requested on July 24, 2018 following the customer’s default. (Ibid.) As a result, Plaintiff suffered damages from the customer’s default, which the parties’ agreement was intended to protect against. (Id. at ¶BC-4.)
In order to prevail on a claim for breach of guaranty, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) Defendant guaranteed payment of the indebtedness of the primary obligor to the plaintiff; (2) default on the indebtedness; (3) plaintiff notified the guarantor of the default; and (4) the guarantor did not remit funds to the plaintiff under the guaranty agreement. (Torrey Pines Bank v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 813, 819; Civ. Code, § 2787.) Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it is undisputed Defendant Miranda failed to make payment as required by the guaranty after Defendant MAS, the primary obligor, breached the Agreement. In support of the Motion, Plaintiff presents the following evidence.
Plaintiff is in the business of providing financing to qualified individuals for the purchase of motor vehicles. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 1; Foreman Decl., ¶2.) Plaintiff routinely purchases financing agreements from automobile dealers. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 2; Foreman Decl., ¶2.) On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff entered into a Master Dealer Agreement with Defendant MAS. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 3; Foreman Decl., ¶3 and Exh. 1.) The Agreement was personally guaranteed by Defendant Miranda pursuant to a written “Continuing Guaranty” executed on September 9, 2013. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 4; Foreman Decl., ¶4 and Exh. 2.)
The Agreement provides that Defendant MAS is obligated to make “payment equal to the amount of the check which was issued from Plaintiff to Defendant [MAS]” 30 days after the customer that purchased a motor vehicle under the RISC defaults. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 5; Foreman Decl., ¶5 and Exh. 1 at ¶4.) On June 10, 2016, Defendant MAS assigned Plaintiff its rights under a RISC for purchase of a 2013 Nissan Altima. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 7; Foreman Decl., ¶6 and Exh. 1.) Plaintiff accepted the RISC under a six-payment default basis. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 8; Foreman Decl., ¶6 and Exhs. 1, 4.) This meant that if the customer defaulted on the RISC within six payment periods (six months), Defendant MAS was obligated to repurchase the RISC. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 9; Foreman Decl., ¶7 and Exhs. 1, 4.) Plaintiff made payment to Defendant MAS under the terms of the Agreement. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts No. 10; Foreman Decl., ¶8.) Following two defaults by the customer and two reinstatements of the RISC, the parties entered into an amended guaranty where the recourse period was four payments. (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts Nos. 11-14; Foreman Decl., ¶¶9-12 and Exh. 5.)
Based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff has carried its initial burden of proof to demonstrate Defendant MAS’ breach of the parties’ Agreement, and Defendant Miranda’s subsequent breach of the Continuing Guaranty. The burden now shifts to Defendant Miranda to create a triable issue of material fact regarding Plaintiff’s inability to prove the elements of its cause of action or the viability of an affirmative defense. As no opposition has been filed, however, Defendant Miranda has not met his burden. Therefore, Plaintiff Foreman Financial, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases