Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 00:21:50 (UTC).

VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS ANDREW STAGGS

Case Summary

On 09/19/2017 VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against ANDREW STAGGS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is VALERIE SALKIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4305

  • Filing Date:

    09/19/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

VALERIE SALKIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

VIDEO SYMPHONY LLC

Defendant

STAGGS ANDREW

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FLANAGAN MICHAEL GERARD

Defendant Attorney

KHAMOUSHIAN LAYLA

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

6/22/2018: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - to Continue Trial

7/19/2018: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - to Continue Trial

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/1/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

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

12/26/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Andrew Staggs in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

2/26/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Andrew Staggs in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Response (name extension) - Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts

2/26/2019: Response (name extension) - Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order to Continue all Hearing Dates including hearing for motion for summary judgment trial date and discovery cut-

2/26/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order to Continue all Hearing Dates including hearing for motion for summary judgment trial date and discovery cut-

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities

2/26/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Objection (name extension) - Evidentiary Objections to the Declarations of Michael G. Flanagan

2/26/2019: Objection (name extension) - Evidentiary Objections to the Declarations of Michael G. Flanagan

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order...)

2/27/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Minute Order Dated 2/27/2019)

2/27/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Minute Order Dated 2/27/2019)

Answer

1/5/2018: Answer

Complaint - (Amended)

12/5/2017: Complaint - (Amended)

Summons - on Complaint

9/19/2017: Summons - on Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/19/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

9/19/2017: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/19/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/01/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by: ANDREW STAGGS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order to Continue all Hearing Dates including hearing for motion for summary judgment trial date and discovery cut-off dates; memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof; declaration of Layla Khamoushian scheduled for 07/22/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Updated -- Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Minute Order Dated 2/27/2019): Status Date changed from 02/27/2019 to 02/27/2019; Name Extension changed from (Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Minute Order Dated 2/27/2019) to (Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Minute Order Dated 2/27/2019); As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order to Continue all Hearing Dates including hearing for motion for summary judgment trial date and discovery cut-off dates; memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof; declaration of Layla Khamoushian scheduled for 02/27/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 07/22/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Updated -- Event scheduled for 07/22/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43 Type changed from Hearing on Ex Parte Application (name extension) to Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 02/27/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Minute Order Dated 2/27/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 03/12/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 02/27/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Ex Parte Application of Andrew Staggs for an Order to Continue all Hearing Dates including hearing for motion for summary judgment trial date and discovery cut-off dates; memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof; declaration of Layla Khamoushian; Filed by: ANDREW STAGGS (Defendant); As to: ANDREW STAGGS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
21 More Docket Entries
  • 12/05/2017
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: ANDREW STAGGS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • Case assigned to Hon. Valerie Salkin in Department F43 Chatsworth Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • OSC - Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 09/19/2018 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Summons on Complaint; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Updated -- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: Status Date changed from 12/05/2017 to 09/19/2017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: ANDREW STAGGS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • The case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17CHLC04305    Hearing Date: May 18, 2021    Dept: 26

Video Symphony, LLC v. Staggs, et al

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of a student loan promissory note and enrollment agreement against Defendant Andrew Staggs (“Defendant”) on September 19, 2017. The First Amended Complaint was filed on December 5, 2017.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on December 26, 2018. Defendant filed an opposition on February 26, 2019. On February 27, 2019, the trial court vacated the hearing date on the Motion.

On June 6, 2019, the action was transferred to the limited jurisdiction court, Department 94, in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The action was then transferred to Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse on November 30, 2020.

Legal Standard

On a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of a particular cause of action, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense 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).) Additionally, in ruling on the Motion, the Court must view the “evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843].)

Allegations in the First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges it is the assignee of Video Symphony EnterTraining, Inc. (“VSE”) and purchased certain of VSE’s account receivables. (FAC, ¶¶2-3.) Defendant entered into an Enrollment Agreement with VSE on October 18, 2011 and received educational services from VSE from January 14, 2012 to October 5, 2013. (Id. at ¶¶5-7 and Exhs. A-B.) In exchange, Plaintiff agreed to pay fees of $30,192.00 for the classes and $2,718.00 for optional equipment. (Id. at ¶¶6, 8 and Exh. C.) Pursuant to a promissory loan note (“the Promissory Note”) Plaintiff signed, he agreed to pay $7,305.00 of which $6,012.00 remains outstanding. (Id. at ¶¶9-10, 14 and Exh. D.) Defendant also breached the Enrollment Agreement by failing to make all payments as obligated, with an unpaid balance of $5,912.00. (Id. at ¶¶18-19.)

Evidentiary Objections

Defendant objects to the declaration of Michael Flanagan, Plaintiff’s counsel, for lack of foundation, lack of authentication, lack of personal knowledge, and incompleteness. The objections are ruled on as follows:

· Paragraphs 2-6, 10 and 11 are sustained for lack of foundation, authentication and personal knowledge. Flanagan does not offer any facts regarding the basis of his personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the declaration. (See Motion, Flanagan Decl., ¶1.) The declaration contains only a bare statement of personal knowledge regarding the facts in the declaration. (Id. at ¶1.) “Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such bare statement of the affiant has no redeeming value and should be ignored.” (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 754.)

· Paragraphs 7-9 and 12 are overruled.

Breach of Promissory Note and Breach of Contract

Both causes of action in the First Amended Complaint are for breach of contract. The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) existence of contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach (or anticipatory breach); and (4) resulting damage. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) It is black letter law that a party generally does not have standing to sue another for breach of contract when the parties are not in privity. (Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald Construction Co. (1998) 71 Cal.App.4th 38, 60.)

As evidence that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for breach of the Promissory Note and breach of the Enrollment Agreement, Plaintiff relies on the following foundational fact: “Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a student Enrollment Agreement with Video Symphony EnterTraining, Inc. (“VSE”) dated October 18, 2011.” (Motion, Separate Statement of Facts, No. 1.) First, it is not clear what Plaintiff means by the statement that both Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the agreement with VSE. Second, the allegation in the First Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is VSE’s assignee. (FAC, ¶2.) Yet, neither the moving brief nor the moving separate statement of facts addresses this assignment. Nor does Plaintiff offer evidence to demonstrate that the purported assignment is undisputed. The evidence cited in support of the Fact No. 1 is from Defendant’s discovery responses, in which he lists the documents that support the affirmative defenses pled in the Answer.

Specifically, Defendant lists the following documents:

(1) Video Symphony Enrollment Agreement dated October 18, 2011;

(2) “Student Loan, Installment Note and Disclosure Agreement” dated October 21, 2011;

(3) VS Student Account Statement, dated August 27, 2014;

(4) Wells Fargo bank statement for 2012; and

(5) Letter dated April 17, 2015 from ACCET

(Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Flanagan Decl., Exh. E, Responses 5 and 12; Exh. F, Response No. 2.) Plaintiff does not explain how any of these documents, even if properly submitted into evidence by the Motion, demonstrate the existence of a contractual obligation between Defendant and Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff has not carried its initial burden of proof with respect to the first element of the causes of action against Defendant: the existence of a contract.

In opposition, Defendant further raises triable issues of material fact regarding the existence of a contract with Plaintiff. Defendant declares that he attended classes offered by VSE and made payment to VSE. (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Staggs Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Defendant additionally argues that there are triable issues of material fact regarding his performance under the Enrollment Agreement because he gave VSE a credit card authorization. (Opp., Staggs Decl., ¶4.)

Finally, the opposition argues that any claims are barred by the statute of limitations because when a contract does not specify the date of payment, payment is on demand and the statute of limitations runs from the inception of the obligation. (Citing Buffington v. Ohmert (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 254, 256 [“For purposes of the statute of limitations, loans payable on demand are deemed payable at their inception, and the statute begins to run from such time.”].) The Enrollment Agreement was signed in October 2011 and the instant action was filed on September 19, 2017. Defendant points to the four-year statute of limitations for breach of written contract under Code of Civil Procedure section 337.

Defendant’s opposition, therefore, raises additional triable issues of material fact regarding his liability for breach of the Promissory Note and Breach of the Enrollment Agreement.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VIDEO SYMPHONY LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KHAMOUSHIAN LAYLA