This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/07/2021 at 00:20:06 (UTC).

JEFFREY TINSLEY VS NADER SABORO

Case Summary

On 12/19/2018 JEFFREY TINSLEY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NADER SABORO. 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 Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5122

  • Filing Date:

    12/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

TINSLEY JEFFREY

Defendant

SABORO NADER AKA NED SABORO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GORHAM GARY JOSEPH

Defendant Attorney

HINDIN ROBERT MARC

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

1/20/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

1/20/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

3/22/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Objection (name extension) - Objection Evidentiary Objections to Evidence Submitted in Support of Opposition

3/30/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection Evidentiary Objections to Evidence Submitted in Support of Opposition

Reply (name extension) - Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

3/30/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

3/30/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

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

4/5/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

4/30/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

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

4/30/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Trial Date

5/6/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Trial Date

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

5/9/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

6/10/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Summons - Summons on Complaint

12/19/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12/19/2018: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

12/19/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/19/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

12/19/2018: Complaint - Complaint

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jeffrey Tinsley on 12/19/2018, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Jeffrey Tinsley as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/30/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 04/05/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 04/05/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketReply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketObjection Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Nader Saborouh; Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketObjection Evidentiary Objections to Evidence Submitted in Support of Opposition; Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketOpposition of Opposition and Opposition of Defendant Nader Saborouh to Plaintiff Tinsley's Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Nader Saborouh; Declaration of Snow Vuong, Esq. Filed by: Nader Saboro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by: Nader Saboro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 01/30/2019
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by: Nader Saboro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff); As to: Nader Saboro (Defendant); Service Date: 01/07/2019; Service Cost: 88.29; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff); As to: Nader Saboro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff); As to: Nader Saboro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Jeffrey Tinsley (Plaintiff); As to: Nader Saboro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC15122    Hearing Date: April 5, 2021    Dept: 26

Tinsley v. Saboro, et al

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jeffrey Tinsley’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jeffrey Tinsley (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendant Nader Saboro aka Ned Saboro (“Defendant”) on December 19, 2018. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on January 20, 2021. Defendant filed an opposition on March 22, 2021. 

Discussion

The Complaint alleges “Defendant purchased a 2005 Bentley Arnage for $25,000, ‘as is’ and refuses to tender the purchase price or return the car.” (Compl., ¶9.)

Plaintiff brings the instant motion for summary judgment based on evidence of the elements for breach of contract. On a summary judgment motion, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense to the cause of action by proving each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

In order to prove breach of contract, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) resulting damages. (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff presents the following facts. Plaintiff sold Defendant a 2005 Bentley Arnage “as is” for $25,000.00 on August 15, 2018. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Tinsely Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) Both parties signed the written “Contract for Sale of Automobile” (“the Contract”). (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; Tinsely Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A; Exh. G (“Saboro Depo.”), p. 18:2-21.) The Contract requires Defendant to pay Plaintiff the total purchase price on the day of the sale by cashier’s check, money order or cash. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 4; Tinsely Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A; Saboro Depo., p. 18:2-21.) The Contract states that the vehicle is sold “as is” and Plaintiff makes no express or implied warranties regarding its condition or performance. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 5; Tinsely Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A; Saboro Depo., p. 39:4-6.) The agreed purchase price was $25,000.00. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 6; Tinsely Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) Defendant tendered a check for $25,000.00 and took possession of the vehicle on August 15, 2018. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Tinsely Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff soon realized he lost the check and requested that Defendant write a replacement check. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 8; Tinsely Decl., ¶¶5-6; Saboro Depo., p. 50:19-23.) Defendant complained he had to spend money on repairs and refused to re-issue a check. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 9; Tinsely Decl., ¶6 and Exh. B; Saboro Decl., p. 50:10-12.) Defendant also said Plaintiff would be charged for picking up the vehicle. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 10; Tinsely Decl., ¶6 and Exh. B.)

This evidence fails to carry Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof of the elements for breach of contract. Plaintiff has not demonstrated through undisputed facts that Defendant breached the Contract. In fact, the evidence is that Defendant paid Plaintiff on the date of the Contract by way of a check for $25,000.00. The Motion argues that Defendant cannot “withhold” payment, but the evidence shows that Defendant already tendered payment. To the extent Plaintiff is arguing that Defendant breached the Contract by failing to tender a second check after Plaintiff lost or misplaced the original instrument, no authority is cited to demonstrate Defendant’s obligation to write a second check. (See Motion, pp. 3-5.) Nor could he. Under California Uniform Commercial Code § 3310, subdivision (b), subdivision (4), Plaintiff’s rights “are limited to enforcement of the [original] instrument [i.e., the check]” rather than a breach of contract. (SEE also § 3309.)

Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is entitled to summary judgment on the single cause of action in the Complaint, breach of contract.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jeffrey Tinsley’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HINDIN ROBERT MARC