On 03/24/2017 NHP/PMB BURBANK MEDICAL PLAZA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RALPH C. HOFER, LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
RALPH C. HOFER
LAURA A. MATZ
CURTIS A. KIN
NHP/PMB BURBANK MEDICAL PLAZA I LLC
MARSH MICHAEL D.
PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK INC.
MANN & ZARPAS LLP
MANN LLOYD STEWART
SHELTON IAN SCOTT
FREUND JONATHAN DANIEL
10/26/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION ADVANCING NOVEMBER 6, 2020 HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
10/26/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 10/26/2020
10/16/2020: Reply - REPLY RE DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1/31/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
7/17/2020: Objection - OBJECTION EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
7/17/2020: Separate Statement
7/23/2020: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL D MARSH AND CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON
7/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
6/10/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
6/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
5/17/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
5/20/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
3/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review)]
2/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review)
3/1/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review)]
3/24/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference
7/5/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons
7/25/2017: Notice of Related Case
Hearing04/05/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/25/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order (JOINT STIPULATION ADVANCING NOVEMBER 6, 2020 HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by PREMIERE MEDICAL CENTER OF BURBANK, INC. (Defendant); MICHAEL D. MARSH (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review) of 10/26/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil CaseRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC066331 Hearing Date: November 04, 2020 Dept: E
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Date: 11/4/20 (2:00 PM)
Case: NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza v. Premiere Medical Center (EC066331)
Plaintiff NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.
Plaintiff NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I, LLC’s (“NHP”) evidentiary objections to the declarations of Michael D. Marsh (¶ 13) and Christopher Anderson (¶ 15) are SUSTAINED. Defendants Premiere Medical Center of Burbank, Inc. and Michael Marsh’s (collectively, “Premiere”) evidentiary objections to the declaration of Stephen King are OVERRULED.
To meet its initial burden on summary judgment, NHP presents the declaration of Stephen King, president of NHP’s managing agent. (King Decl. ¶ 1.) King declares that Premiere stopped paying rent as required by the documents comprising the lease – the original lease agreement, the First Amendment to Lease Agreement, and the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement. (UMF 1-3 and 14 and evidence cited.) King presents “AR Aging Detail” spreadsheets showing the amounts due as of January 2020 for each of the suites that Premiere leased. The spreadsheets show that $474,989.93 is outstanding for Suite 300, $214,634.35 is outstanding for Suite 325, and $374,182.21 is outstanding for Suite 355, for a total of $1,036,806.49. (King Decl. ¶ 21 & Ex. D.) The statements served on Premiere also confirm these amounts. (Id.)
While the Court finds King’s declaration to be conclusory and rather lacking in explanation for either the methodology by which he calculated rent due and owing or the various factual assumptions he made in so doing, the Court, nonetheless, finds that NHP has met its initial burden to demonstrate that Premiere may have breached its lease agreement in the amount of $1,036,806.49.
Premiere does not dispute that it did not pay rent due under the lease, but contends that the amount of damages is in dispute. Seizing on Premiere’s concession, NHP argues that, at the very least, it is entitled to summary adjudication of the issue of duty. That is, NHP seeks a determination that defendants breached their duty to pay rent under the lease documents, with the amount of damages to be determined at trial. In Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, however, the Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff cannot move for summary adjudication on a breach of contract cause of action as to liability only, leaving damages to be resolved at trial, because damages is an element of a breach of contract cause of action. (Paramount Petroleum, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 241.) Citing CCP § 437(f)(1), the Court in Paramount Petroleum stated that “a plaintiff can only obtain summary adjudication of a cause of action if the plaintiff establishes each element of the cause of action entitling it to judgment on that cause of action.” (Paramount Petroleum, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 243.) Accordingly, the instant motion rises and falls on whether there remains any disputed material issue of fact with respect to NHP’s entitlement to its claim of $1,036,806.49 in rent due and owing.
On this record, the Court concludes NHP’s motion must fall. Summary judgment must be denied for the simple and straightforward reason that King declares Premiere owes $1,036,806.49, while Premiere’s damages expert, Mr. Anderson, concludes that Premiere owes $1,028,683, even when using the same underlying assumptions as King concerning holdover tenancy periods. (Compare King Decl. ¶ 21 & Ex. D with Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 7, 28 & Schedule 8.) In so finding, the Court rejects NHP’s claim that this approximately $8,000 difference (which NHP does not dispute) is immaterial, particularly in the absence of any explanation in the record for this discrepancy. Nor does the Court agree with NHP’s argument that it may simply ask for and receive summary judgment in its favor for the lower amount of $1,028,683, just because it is willing to accept a judgment for that lower amount. Indeed, NHP cites no authority for this novel approach to summary judgment.
Moreover, there are other disputed material issues of fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment here. With respect to rent owed for Suite 325, King presumes NHP could charge holdover rent through October 6, 2015 (see King Decl. ¶ 21 & Exs. D & F), but Premiere presents evidence that its rent obligation for Suite 325 should have ceased on October 1, 2014 when Premiere’s subtenant (Burbank Imaging) moved out (see Marsh Decl. ¶ 8), or some unspecified time thereafter due to the continued use of a portion of Suite 325 by Premiere’s telephone operators (see Marsh Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11.) Because the record is devoid of any explanation by King as to how or why he used the October 6, 2015 date for Suite 325, it is not possible to interpret Premiere’s seemingly competing evidence that is consistent with King’s declaration and NHP’s claim. Further, with respect to Suite 355, King presumes NHP could charge holdover rent through January 31, 2017 (see King Decl. ¶ 21 & Exs. D & G), but Premiere presents evidence that its rent obligation for that suite ended on December 1, 2016, when Premiere’s subtenant (Therapeutic Associates) moved out of Suite 355 (see March Decl. ¶¶ 10-11).
Because the Court finds, at the very least, there exist the above-discussed, disputed material issues of fact, Plaintiff NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.