This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/04/2020 at 09:47:10 (UTC).

VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS CHRIS VICARI

Case Summary

On 07/31/2018 VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against CHRIS VICARI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RICK BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2097

  • Filing Date:

    07/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

RICK BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

VIDEO SYMPHONY LLC

Defendant

VICARI CHRIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FLANAGAN MICHAEL GERARD

Defendant Attorney

KINGSTON CHRISTINE ANN

 

Court Documents

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to MSJ

11/12/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to MSJ

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)]

11/25/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)]

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

9/3/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

9/3/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Transferring Case To The Stanley Mosk Courthouse ...) of 08/02/2019

8/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Transferring Case To The Stanley Mosk Courthouse ...) of 08/02/2019

Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings - Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

8/5/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings - Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

Reply (name extension) - Reply Defendant's Supplemental Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer

12/14/2018: Reply (name extension) - Reply Defendant's Supplemental Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer

Order (name extension) - Order Order Overruling Demurrer

1/15/2019: Order (name extension) - Order Order Overruling Demurrer

Notice of Trial - Notice of Trial

1/22/2019: Notice of Trial - Notice of Trial

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

2/11/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

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

10/23/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

12/5/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendant Chris Vicari's Demurrer to Plainitff's Complaint for Damages

10/31/2018: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendant Chris Vicari's Demurrer to Plainitff's Complaint for Damages

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/1/2018: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Complaint

7/31/2018: Complaint

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

7/31/2018: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7/31/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/20/2020
  • Hearing02/20/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 02/20/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)]; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter Re: George Aguilar CSR# 14142; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 11/21/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 11/21/2019; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketReply to Opposition to MSJ; Filed by: CHRIS VICARI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketOpposition to Motion For Summary Judgment, Adjudication; Declaration of Michael Flanagan; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 10/23/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: CHRIS VICARI (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 09/10/2018; Service Cost: 75.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: CHRIS VICARI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Rick Brown in Department F43 Chatsworth Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 08/06/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: CHRIS VICARI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18CHLC22097    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Chris Vicari’s Motion is DENIED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN HIS ANSWER.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for breach of student loan promissory note.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Grant Defendant summary judgment on the grounds that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, or alternatively, that the loan agreement fails to include all the information mandated for a retail installment contract by the Unruh Act.

OPPOSITION: The cause of action for breach of an installment contract arises separately for each installment, and the statute of limitations for breach of a promissory note is six years. Also, where a note is acquired by a party who does not know of the note’s non-compliance with the Unruh Act, recovery by the acquiring party is not barred.

REPLY: The agreement at issue is a retail installment contract, not a promissory note, and subject to a four year statute of limitations. The Unruh Act is a strict liability statute and the accruing party’s ignorance is no defense.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of a student loan agreement against Defendant Chris Vicari (“Defendant”) on July 31, 2018. On January 3, 2019, the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint. On August 2, 2019, the case was reassigned from Department 43 of the Chatsworth Courthouse to Department 94 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, on September 3, 2019. On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition.” Although the Court’s file does not reflect the filing of any opposition to the Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction that it was unable to electronically file the document despite multiple attempts starting on November 5, 2019. Plaintiff has provided the Court with an electronic copy.

Defendant moves for summary judgment, or in the alterative, summary adjudication, on the grounds that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, and he has an undisputed defense under the Unruh Act.

Statute of Limitations

Defendant relies on the four-year statute of limitations for a breach of contract cause of action, set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 337. In opposition, Plaintiff contends the six-year statute of limitations under Commercial Code section 3118 applies. The chapter of the Commercial Code on which Plaintiff relies defines a “negotiable instrument” as an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money that “[d]oes not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money . . . .” (Cal. U. Com. Code, § 3104, subd. (a)(3).) A promise is not unconditional if it states it is subject to any other agreement. (Cal. U. Com. Code, § 3106, subd. (a).)

Defendant presents evidence that the agreement at issue here is subject to the terms and conditions provided by any other written agreement between the parties. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 6; Vicari Decl., ¶5; Compl., Exh. C, ¶ “Promise to Pay.”) Defendant, therefore, has shown that the loan agreement is not a negotiable instrument under the Commercial Code and instead, subject to the four year statute of limitations set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 337. The last installment date under the agreement was December 2, 2014.

However, Plaintiff is correct that the “[w]hen an instrument is payable in installments, the cause of action on each installment accrues on the day following the date the installment is due.” (White v. Moriarty (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1299.) Plaintiff’s cause of action, therefore, is not time barred as to installments that came due on July 31, 2014 (four years after this action was filed) or thereafter.) As Defendant offers no evidence as to whether any installments came due after July 31, 2014 or thereafter, he has not carried his burden of proof regarding entitlement to summary judgment.

Affirmative Defense Pursuant to the Unruh Act

Defendant also contends, in moving for summary adjudication, that the agreement’s failure to comply with the provisions of the Unruh Act are an affirmative defense to recovery beyond the principal of the loan. Civil Code section 1803.2, subdivision (b) provides that the agreement must state, in 12-point font, (2) the words “Retail Installment Contract.” (Civ. Code, § 1803.2, subd. (b)(2).) However, this limitation on recovery applies only to “any person who acquires a contract or installment account with knowledge of such noncompliance.” (Civ. Code, § 1812.7.) In Morgan v. Reasor Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 881, the California Supreme Court explained that “the requirement of section 1812.7 as to knowledge is satisfied if the holder possesses knowledge of facts sufficient to put a reasonable man on inquiry. (Morgan v. Reasor Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 881, 893.)

In his Motion, Defendant presents evidence that the agreement does not state the words “Retail Installment Contract” in 12-point font. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 8; Kingston Decl., Exhs. A and B; Compl., Exh. C.) He also argues that the entity that created the agreement, Video Symphony EnterTraining, Inc. (“VSE”), was owned by Michael Flanagan, who is the sole shareholder of the entity that now owns the debt (Plaintiff). As the Motion points out, Common ownership between VSE and Plaintiff is alleged in the Complaint. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact Nos. 1, 3; Compl., ¶3.) This demonstrates that Plaintiff possessed sufficient knowledge of the agreement’s compliance with the Unruh Act to put a reasonable person on notice.

Plaintiff’s opposition further confirms a relationship between VSE and Plaintiff that would give Plaintiff knowledge of facts sufficient to put a reasonable man on inquiry regarding whether the agreement included the words “Retail Installment Contract.” (Opp., Separate Statement Fact Nos. 1, 3; Flanagan Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Nor does Flanagan’s declaration disavowing knowledge of the Unruh Act and its “technical formatting” requirements assist Defendant. It is knowledge of the inclusion of the relevant language itself, not that their inclusion is required by statute, that is relevant. Plaintiff’s opposition does not create a triable issue of material fact regarding the request for summary adjudication.

Conclusion

Defendant Chris Vicari’s Motion is DENIED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN HIS ANSWER.

Moving party to give notice.