This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/29/2020 at 05:35:57 (UTC).

SARGON LAZAROF VS TODD BERNSTEIN

Case Summary

On 07/16/2019 SARGON LAZAROF filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TODD BERNSTEIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6595

  • Filing Date:

    07/16/2019

  • 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

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LAZAROF SARGON

Defendant

BERNSTEIN TODD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KELLEY KYLE P.

Defendant Attorney

TAMBORELLI JOHN

 

Court Documents

Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

7/17/2020: Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

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

6/29/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

6/1/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

6/24/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication

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

4/15/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

1/29/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Summary Adjudication - Motion for Summary Adjudication

1/29/2020: Motion for Summary Adjudication - Motion for Summary Adjudication

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

1/29/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

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

10/29/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Answer - Answer

10/15/2019: Answer - Answer

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

8/28/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

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

8/28/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Declaration re: Due Diligence - Declaration re: Due Diligence

8/28/2019: Declaration re: Due Diligence - Declaration re: Due Diligence

Summons - Summons on Complaint

7/16/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

7/16/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/16/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

7/16/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

7/16/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/19/2022
  • Hearing07/19/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • Hearing01/21/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • Hearing01/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketMotion for Attorney Fees; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 01/21/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication scheduled for 06/29/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 06/29/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2020
  • DocketReply in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 08/28/2019
  • DocketDeclaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff); As to: Todd Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff); As to: Todd Bernstein (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/16/2019; Service Cost: 233.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff); As to: Todd Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff); As to: Todd Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Sargon Lazarof (Plaintiff); As to: Todd Bernstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06595    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Sargon Lazarof’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the breach of contract cause of action is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 23, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 23, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Sargon Lazarof (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud against Defendant Todd K. Bernstein (“Defendant”). On October 15, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 16, 2019 in this action and (2) the Answer to the Complaint filed by Defendant on October 15, 2019. (Request for Judicial Notice, ¶¶ 1-2.)

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.)

“A motion for summary adjudication…shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment” and “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, subds. (f)(1)-(2).)

  1. Discussion

Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication as to the breach of contract cause of action on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact or defense. (Mot., pp. 2.)

“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.] ‘In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.’ [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.)

Plaintiff presents the following evidence. On January 17, 2019, Defendant signed a Loan Agreement and Promissory Note (the “Loan Agreement”) for a $7,500.00 loan. (Mot., Separate Statement (“SS”), Nos. 1, 3; Lazarof Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The Loan Agreement provided that Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff $8,500.00 for the $7,500.00 loan made by Plaintiff to Defendant on January 17, 2019. (Id.) Payment was to be made no later than February 17, 2019. (Id.) In the event of default, Defendant agreed to be “responsible for all court costs, collection costs, and attorney fees associated with the collection of the loan” plus 10% interest. (Id.) Defendant also gave Plaintiff a check post-dated for February 17, 2019 for the amount of $8,500.00. (Mot, SS No. 2, Lazarof Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Defendant does not dispute the validity of the contract. (See Mot., Kelley Decl., Exh. D, Form Interrogatory No. 150.1.)

Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Plaintiff lent Defendant $7,500.00 in cash. (Mot., SS. No. 5; Lazarof Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant did not repay the loan on February 17, 2019 as agreed. (Mot., SS No. 5; Lazarof Decl., ¶ 7.) As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $8,500.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs. (Mot., SS No. 6; Lazarof Decl., ¶ 7.)

Based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff has carried his initial burden to demonstrate there is no triable issue of material fact as to the breach of contract cause of action. Thus, the burden now shifts to Defendant to show a triable issue of material fact does exist. As no opposition has been filed, however, Defendant has not met his burden.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Sargon Lazarof’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the breach of contract cause of action is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.