This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/19/2021 at 12:47:36 (UTC).

LONDON & CO., LLP, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP VS CHARLIE CHUNG, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 08/27/2020 LONDON CO , LLP, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CHARLIE CHUNG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7317

  • Filing Date:

    08/27/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LONDON & CO. LLP CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Defendants

WILFRED WINSTON CORPORATION. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CHUNG CHARLIE

INCLUSIVE DOES 1-20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WRIGHT ANDREW

Defendant Attorney

HASIC HALIL

 

Court Documents

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

12/24/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/20/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

1/20/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration re: Due Diligence - Declaration re: Due Diligence

1/20/2021: Declaration re: Due Diligence - Declaration re: Due Diligence

Answer - Answer

10/13/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

9/18/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/27/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

9/8/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8/27/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Complaint - Complaint

8/27/2020: Complaint - Complaint

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

8/27/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/31/2023
  • Hearing08/31/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2022
  • Hearing02/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff); As to: Charlie Chung (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff); As to: Charlie Chung (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/03/2020; Service Cost: 157.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2021
  • DocketDeclaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff); As to: Charlie Chung (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Halil Hasic (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2020
  • DocketAddress for Halil Hasic (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Charlie Chung (Defendant); Wilfred Winston, Corporation., a California corporation (Defendant); As to: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff); As to: Wilfred Winston, Corporation., a California corporation (Defendant); Service Date: 09/11/2020; Service Cost: 80.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff); As to: Charlie Chung (Defendant); Wilfred Winston, Corporation., a California corporation (Defendant); Does 1-20 inclusive (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/31/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: London & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a California limited liability partnership (Plaintiff); As to: Charlie Chung (Defendant); Wilfred Winston, Corporation., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC07317 Hearing Date: August 9, 2021 Dept: 26

London & Co., LLP\r\nv. Chung, et al. 20STLC07317

MOTION\r\nFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ADJUDICATION

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §\r\n437c)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff London & Company,\r\nLLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff London & Company, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed the\r\ninstant action for breach of settlement agreement against Defendants Charlie\r\nChung (“Defendant Chung”) and Wilfred Winston Corporation (“Defendant WCC”) on\r\nFebruary 27, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for\r\nSummary Judgment. Defendants filed an opposition on July 15, 2021 and Plaintiff\r\nreplied on July 22, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of a\r\nparticular cause of action, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no\r\ndefense by proving each element of the cause of action entitling the party to\r\njudgment on that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Then\r\nthe burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more\r\nmaterial facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Additionally, in ruling on the Motion, the Court\r\nmust view the “evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the\r\nlight most favorable to the opposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court\r\n(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.\r\n(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Evidentiary Objections

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of\r\nDefendant Chung in support of the opposition are ruled on as follows: Nos. 1,\r\n2, 7, 8, are sustained; Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are overruled.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The elements of a cause of action for\r\nbreach of contract are (1) existence of contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance\r\nor excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach (or anticipatory breach);\r\nand (4) resulting damage. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co.\r\n(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff\r\nperformed professional accounting and tax services for Defendants for several\r\nyears in exchange for an agreed upon hourly rate. (Compl., ¶¶8-10.) When\r\nDefendants did not pay as agreed, the parties reached an agreement dated May\r\n30, 2017 (“the Contract”) whereby Defendants would satisfy the $13,000 balance\r\nowed by making payments over a period of time. (Id. at ¶11 and Exh. A.)\r\nDefendants have defaulted on the Contract’s terms causing Plaintiff to be\r\ndamaged in the minimum amount of $10,000, plus 10 percent interest per annum. (Id.\r\nat ¶¶12 and 17.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff\r\npresents the following facts regarding the Contract and Defendants’ breach of\r\nthe same. On May 30, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement\r\npursuant to which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $13,000.00. (Motion,\r\nSeparate Statement, Fact Nos. 1-2; Exh. 4 (“London Decl.”), ¶¶3-4; Exh. 1; Exh.\r\n3 (“Chung Depo.”), pp, 15:5-2, 23:17-25:1; 26:7-10.) Plaintiff performed all\r\nits obligations under the Contract. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 3;\r\nLondon Decl., ¶¶3-4; Exh. 1.) Defendants made payments totaling $8,350.00\r\nthrough February 2020. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 4; Exh. 1; Exh. 2;\r\nChung Depo., p. 26:7-10; London Decl., ¶¶5-7.) Defendants stopped making\r\npayments before the contract amount was paid. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact\r\nNo. 5; Exhs. 1-2; London Decl., ¶¶5-7.) Under the terms of the Contract,\r\nDefendants owe $4,650.00. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 6; Exhs. 1-2;\r\nLondon Decl., ¶¶5-7.) Due to Defendants’ failure to pay, Plaintiff has been\r\ndamaged in the amount of $4,650.00 and forced to bring this action. (Motion,\r\nSeparate Statement, Fact Nos. 7-8; Exhs. 1-2; London Decl., ¶¶5-8; Wright\r\nDecl., ¶3.) Under the Contract, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees\r\nand costs. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 9; Exh. 1; Chung Depo., pp.\r\n15:5-2, 23:17-25:1; 26:7-10.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Despite Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants were to pay\r\n$13,000.00 under the Contract, the Contract terms only provide for payment in\r\nthe amount of $10,776.00[1],\r\nas follows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nSeven (7) payments of $300.00 each on or before\r\nOctober 31, 2017; and

\r\n\r\n

· \r\n36 monthly payments of $241.00 starting on\r\nNovember 30, 2017 and due on the last day of each consecutive month through\r\nOctober 31, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Motion, Exh. 1, ¶2.) Instead of making payments totaling\r\n$10,776.00 by October 31, 2020, Defendants made payments in the amount of\r\n$8,350.00 until February 26, 2020 and then stopped. (Id. at Exh. 2, p.\r\n3.) Plaintiff argues that as a result of this breach, the entire $13,000.00\r\nbalance referenced as consideration in the Contract is now due. (Motion, p.\r\n6:12-13.) Taking into account the $8,350.00 in payments made, Plaintiff\r\ncontends it is still owed $4,650.00 based on the $13,000.00 outstanding balance.\r\n(Id. at p. 6:13-14.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The terms of the Contract do not support this\r\ninterpretation. Nowhere does the Contract indicate that the total balance of\r\n$13,000.00 becomes due upon breach of its terms. Instead, the Contract states\r\nthat “If each payment above described in Section 2(1) and (2) totaling $10,800\r\nis made, no further payments will be due from the Clients to the Firm and the\r\namounts due related to the Claims will be satisfied.” (Motion, Exh. 1, ¶2.)\r\nWhile this suggests Defendants would still owe a balance if payments were not\r\nmade according to the schedule, it does not indicate whether the balance would\r\nbe calculated from $13,000.00 or $10,800.00 (or $10,776.00). Therefore, the\r\nterms of the Contract regarding consideration are ambiguous. (See Estate of\r\nDye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966, 976 [“To say that language is ambiguous is\r\nto say there is more than one semantically permissible candidate for\r\napplication, though it cannot be determined from the language which is meant.”].)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If the court determines that a contract is ambiguous, a\r\nparty is entitled to introduce extrinsic evidence to aid the interpretation of\r\nthe contract. (Appleton v. Waessil\r\n(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 551, 554-555; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman\r\n(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1140-1141.) Plaintiff’s\r\nMotion does not points to extrinsic evidence that would resolve this ambiguity.\r\nAccordingly, the Motion does not carry Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof to\r\ndemonstrate all elements of a breach of contract cause of action are\r\nundisputed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, Defendants argue triable issues exist\r\nregarding: (1) the amount of damages because Defendants only owe Plaintiff\r\n$2,635.00 or less, not $4,650.00; (2) the ledger submitted in support of the\r\nMotion is inaccurate because it does not reflect all payments made by\r\nDefendants towards the $13,000.00 balance; (3) the Contract terms because they\r\ndo not indicate what payments are to be credited to Defendants’ balance and\r\nwhat payments are not; (4) whether Defendants’ failure to exactly follow the\r\npayment schedule in the Contract and Plaintiff’s acquiescence to such payments\r\nwaived any breach of contract theory on that basis; (5) whether Defendants had\r\nuntil October 2020 to pay the $10,776.00 amount set forth in the Contract and\r\nthat by filing this action in August 2020, Plaintiff breached its terms.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Initially, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’\r\nlack of citation to supporting authority is fatal to opposition arguments that\r\nPlaintiff’s waived, or acquiesced to, Defendants’ alleged breach. (See Oppo.,\r\npp. 5:18-6:8.) Also, Defendants’ request that the Court transfer this action to\r\nthe Small Claims Court fails. Transfers to the Small Claims Court are improper\r\nwhere the Limited Jurisdiction Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the\r\nclaims. (See Rosenberg v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 860,\r\n867-868.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Regarding the dispute over the amount of damages owed,\r\nDefendants provide their own understanding of the second paragraph of the Contract.\r\n(Opp., Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; Exh. 1 ISO Motion, ¶2.) Specifically,\r\nthat consideration under the Contract was $10,776.00, and that Defendants would\r\nbe credited for payments made prior to the execution of the Contract. (Opp.,\r\nSeparate Statement, Fact No. 2; Exh. 1 ISO Motion, ¶2; Chung Decl., ¶¶4-5.)\r\nDefendant Chung declares that because of a dispute over the amount owed for\r\nPlaintiff’s services, the parties agreed to fix the amount owed at $13,000.00.\r\n(Opp., Chung Decl., ¶4.) In consideration for discharge of the amount owed,\r\nDefendants would pay $10,776.00, towards which payments made before the\r\nContract was executed would also be credited. (Id. at ¶5.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Nor does Plaintiff offer any authority for its contention\r\nthat that Defendants are “not qualified” to interpret the ledger, a document\r\nPlaintiff itself placed into the record and explains as follows: “Between May\r\n30, 2017 and February 26, 2020, London received and accepted payments from Mr.\r\nChung and Wilfred Winston Corporation totaling $8,350.00. A true and complete\r\npayment ledger kept by London in the regular course of business tracking the\r\npayments and dates of payments made by Mr. Chung and Wilfred Winston\r\nCorporation to London is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to the compendium of\r\nevidence.” (Motion, London Decl., ¶5.) The crediting of earlier made payments\r\nis consistent with Plaintiff’s own explanation because the ledger includes a $3,000.00\r\ncredit balance dated May 31, 2016, which predates the execution of the\r\nContract. If Plaintiff did not intend to credit Defendants for payments made\r\nbefore the execution of the Contract, where did the $3,000.00 credit balance\r\ncome from?

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Additionally, Defendants produce an email they received from\r\nPlaintiff’s principal, Philip London, on June 30, 2020, which states the amount\r\nowing on their account is $2,635.00. (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 6-8;\r\nChung Decl., Exh. 1, p. 4.) This contradicts Plaintiff’s position regarding the\r\nmeaning of the Contract terms.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This evidence demonstrates the existence of a triable issue\r\nof material fact regarding consideration, which is a material term in the\r\nContract. “If there is no evidence establishing a manifestation of assent to\r\nthe “same thing” by both parties, then there is no mutual consent to contract\r\nand no contract formation.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick\r\n(1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811 [citing Civ.Code §§ 1550, 1565 and 1580].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants also raise triable issues of fact about the\r\nledger Plaintiff submitted to demonstrate the payments made. Defendants contend\r\nthat certain checks dated February 28, 2017, March 28, 2017, April 28, 2017 and\r\nMay 28, 2017 are not reflected on the ledger. (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact\r\nNos. 4, 6; Chung Decl., ¶10 and Exh. 2.) Although Plaintiff replies that the\r\npayments are on the ledger at entries dated February 28, 2017, March 31, 2017\r\nand June 1, 2017 (which combined the April and May 2017 checks), those entries\r\ndo not match the check numbers of Defendants’ checks or have no check number at\r\nall. These discrepancies are enough to raise a triable issue of material fact\r\nregarding the amount Defendants paid towards their balance and whether the\r\namount unpaid resulted in a breach of the Contract. To Plaintiff’s argument\r\nthat the accuracy of the ledger is not a material fact, the Court disagrees.\r\nWithout the ledger, Plaintiff’ would have only the unsubstantiated statement of\r\nits principal that Defendants made payments totaling $8,350.00 from May 2017 to\r\nFebruary 2020. (Motion, London Decl., ¶5.) \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff London & Company,\r\nLLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants to give notice.

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

[1] The Contract incorrectly calculates 36 payments of\r\n$241.00 as $8,700.00. The correct amount is $8,676.00.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LONDON & CO. LLP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WRIGHT ANDREW