Breach of Contract for Not Paying in Full or On Time in California

Plaintiff counters that the complaint alleges breach of an agreement for failure to pay past and future rent. A common count cause of action withstands general and special demurrer if the elements are stated: a statement of indebtedness, consideration, and nonpayment. ( Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4 th 445, 460.) As addressed above, the complaint sufficiently articulates the existence of the lease agreement, and non-payment of rent.

The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract against Defendants, (2) breach of contract re: guaranty against Zinberg and Itkin, (3) fraud against Defendants, (4) common count against Defendants, (5) breach of contract against BUI, Zinberg, and Itkin, (6) fraud against BUI, Zinberg, and Itkin, and (7) common count against Defendants.

The moratoria apply to nonpayment eviction notices, no-fault eviction notices, rent increase notices, and unlawful detainer actions served and or filed on or after 3/4/20. Plaintiff argues that the moratoria were intended to prevent evictions for non-payment of rent due to the COVID-19 crisis, which is not at issue here. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay rent and prematurely abandoned the premises causing damage to Plaintiff. c.

Plaintiff moves to summarily adjudicate the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) wrongful discharge; (3) non-payment of earned wages (Labor Code § 204); (4) failure to reimburse business expenses (Labor Code § 2802); (5) failure to provide proper wage statements (Labor Code § 226); (6) retaliation (Labor Coe § 98.6); (7) non-payment of wages at termination (Labor Code § 201); (9) misclassification and non-payment of overtime wages (Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194); (10) failure to pay minimum wages

CMCs CEO, Marshall Biro, attests to CMCs full performance under the contract and Defendants failure to pay for services rendered. Additionally, the motion is supported by judicial admissions that include: (1) Vista Healths contractual obligation to pay CMC for staffing services; (2) Vista Healths failure to pay; (3) Vista Healths breach of contract; (4) the absence of any justification or excuse for nonpayment; and (5) the benefit conferred upon Vista Health by CMCs services.

For the cause of action for common counts, Plaintiff must allege facts regarding (1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) The Complaint, however, does not allege any facts regarding the indebtedness, the consideration that was exchanged, or Defendant’s failure to pay. (Compl., ¶CC.)

Defendants contend that plaintiff cannot seek damages from non-payment of rent until at least six months after the cessation of the emergency declaration. However, as plaintiff points out, the regulation is inapplicable to the case at bar. First, there are no allegations to indicate that plaintiff is seeking damages from non-payment of rent.

This is an action for breach of contract and failure to pay plaintiff his full wages due. Defendant is a corporation with its principal place of business in Stanislaus County. Plaintiff has been employed by defendant for more than 10 years as head adjustor. He also performs repossessions. Plaintiff performs work in a variety of counties including on occasion, Sacramento County.

These damages allegations are not contained in the 9 th cause of action for breach of contract against Colony, nor are they incorporated by reference. The only paragraphs incorporated by reference are ¶¶1-19. Plaintiff alleges at ¶74 that the Colony policy had never been issued due to failure to pay premiums. Plaintiff does not incorporate ¶74 into the 9 th cause of action. Plaintiff is also entitled to plead in the alternative.

This MOU agreement forms the basis for the breach of contract alleged in the first cause of action. As alleged, WAC breached this agreement when it failed to pay certain subcontractors for their work on the project. It is further alleged that Plaintiff AZPB LP is an assignee of the claims for non-payment asserted by some of the unpaid subcontractors. As alleged, Foundation has not sustained any damages. Instead, the subcontractors who were not paid sustained damages.

Mink also argues in opposition that his breach of contract claim is one for nonpayment of fees. Mink’s 2 nd cause of action for quantum meruit clearly alleges nonpayment and requests payment of the reasonable value of his services. Based on Mink’s opposition and Cross-complaint, Mink’s 1 st cause of action for breach of contract is based in part on Moda’s failure to pay Mink’s fees.

Defendant argues: · “Should the unlawful detainer matter be tried without consolidation, it may have res judicata effect on the Breach of Contract Action.” (Motion, 4:23-25.) · “In the Breach of Contract Action, Defendant is asserting that the Landlords breached the oral agreement between the parties. In the UD action, the Plaintiff is claiming that it has standing to evict Defendant pursuant to their local agreement.

In Voris, the court explained that “the conversion tort is not the right fit for the wrong that Voris alleges, nor is it the right fix for the deficiencies Voris perceives in the existing system of remedies for wage non payment.” (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court explained that it “declined to supplement the existing set of remedies for wage nonpayment with an additional tort remedy in the nature of employment” because: “there already exist extensive remedies for the nonpayment of wages.

In Voris, the court explained that “the conversion tort is not the right fit for the wrong that Voris alleges, nor is it the right fix for the deficiencies Voris perceives in the existing system of remedies for wage non payment.” (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court explained that it “declined to supplement the existing set of remedies for wage nonpayment with an additional tort remedy in the nature of employment” because: “there already exist extensive remedies for the nonpayment of wages.

Here, Plaintiffs cannot rely on when they discovered a particular breach for nonpayment of royalties from Sound Exchange when the SAC is replete with other similar instances of nonpayment. It is not necessary that Plaintiffs were not specifically aware of non-payment from a specific source only that they were suspicious that they were not receiving their required payments for the Masters.

Nonpayment of an installment payment when due is breach of contract and is material due to defendants only paying 50% of purchase price and taking back a secured promissory note on the remaining 50% of the purchase price. 4. Nonpayment of one installment is a material breach of promissory note. See Exh. B Yatman Decl. $6,766.00 installment payment not paid in February 2017 when due.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cites no case law to support the contention that the breach of contract claims in the cross complaint are not related to the breach of contract claim on the same contract that Plaintiff asserts in the complaint. Defendant acted in good faith. III.

Ordinance 186606 suspended evictions for COVID-19- related non-payment.

The complaint contains four causes of action arising out of Defendants failure to pay rent due under a lease agreement: two contract claims and two common counts. To state a claim for breach of contract, a Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish: (1) a contract between the parties; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff from the breach. (See e.g. Wall Street Network, Ltd. v.

The proposed first amended cross-complaint (“P1ACC”) is substantially identical to the operative cross- complaint but it adds four causes of action: one by ARMANDO for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, one by GABRIELLA for the same, one by both ARMANDO and GABRIELLA for failure to pay wages upon discharge, and one by them both for unfair business practices.

The proposed first amended cross-complaint (“P1ACC”) is substantially identical to the operative cross- complaint but it adds four causes of action: one by ARMANDO for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, one by GABRIELLA for the same, one by both ARMANDO and GABRIELLA for failure to pay wages upon discharge, and one by them both for unfair business practices.

The proposed first amended cross-complaint (“P1ACC”) is substantially identical to the operative cross- complaint but it adds four causes of action: one by ARMANDO for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, one by GABRIELLA for the same, one by both ARMANDO and GABRIELLA for failure to pay wages upon discharge, and one by them both for unfair business practices.

The proposed first amended cross-complaint (“P1ACC”) is substantially identical to the operative cross- complaint but it adds four causes of action: one by ARMANDO for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, one by GABRIELLA for the same, one by both ARMANDO and GABRIELLA for failure to pay wages upon discharge, and one by them both for unfair business practices.

The proposed first amended cross-complaint (“P1ACC”) is substantially identical to the operative cross- complaint but it adds four causes of action: one by ARMANDO for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, one by GABRIELLA for the same, one by both ARMANDO and GABRIELLA for failure to pay wages upon discharge, and one by them both for unfair business practices.

breach of contract claim based upon Moving Defendants alleged non-payment of rent for April and May 2024 fails as such claim falls outside of the scope of this action.

In an action to recover a balance due and owing under the terms of a written Loan and Security Agreements and Disclosure Statement, Coasthills must also prove the following elements for its breach of contract cause of action on the Contract: (1) the execution of a valid Loan and Security Agreements and Disclosure Statement; (2) non-payment or other breach by the defendant; and (3) the amount of the balance indebtedness.

Plaintiff alleges full non-payment on the second, third, fourth, and fifth loans, thereby leaving an outstanding total balance of $411,241.59. On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint Breach of Contract, Common Counts and Fraud. On January 24, 2025, Orlanski filed a cross-complaint against Manalo for Usury and Declaratory Relief. Manalo answered the cross-complaint on February 25, 2025. RULING Demurrer: OVERRULED.

(2000), the Second District, Division 7 Court of Appeal declined to create a duty of care on the insurance broker to notify a named insured of the insurers intent to cancel a policy for nonpayment of premiums. Even if such a duty were owed, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the elements of breach and causation, for the reasons addressed in the analysis on the breach of contract cause of action.

Accordingly, Plaintiff was entirely within his rights to file this suit for nonpayment of the Note without a foreclosure sale of the stock. In addition, our Supreme Court has stated that the duty to mitigate damages is inapplicable where the defendant’s breach was due solely to the failure to pay money. ( Vitagraph, Inc. v Liberty Theatres Co. (1925) 197 Cal. 694, 698-699.)

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract/covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) failure to pay wages; (3) B & P Code § 17200; (4) breach of oral contract; (5) fraud; (6) intentional interference; and (7) implied in fact contract. DISCUSSION A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)

Labor Code section 218.5, in relevant part, provides “In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages…the court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney’s fees and costs upon the initiation of the action.” Plaintiff’s form complaint asserted one cause of action for breach of contract. (Pl. Compl.)

Based on defendants request for judicial notice, it appears that plaintiff lacks capacity to prosecute the action as it has been suspended for failure to pay taxes. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to provide plaintiff the opportunity to show revivor. Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.

In this case, Plaintiff stated a cause of action for breach of contract at least as to the October and November invoices. Furthermore, the Plaintiff provided all legal services as part of Plaintiff’s continuous representation of Defendants in the Kelly Litigation. Therefore, the cause of action for nonpayment did not accrue until the substitution of attorney on October 31, 2014. For the same reasons the motion fails for breach of contract, it fails for account stated.

The elements of a common counts claim generally are: (1) a statement of indebtedness in a certain sum; (2) consideration (goods sold, work done, etc.); and (3) nonpayment. ( Allen v. Powell (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 502, 510.) While the complaint alleges a breach of contract and a common counts based upon the nonpayment of lottery winnings, Plaintiff fails to include a copy of the contract or set forth the essential terms.

Here, Cannivet sued Palo for nonpayment of wages, albeit in a circuitous way. His cross-complaint, filed 04/10/17, does not include a tradition “failure to pay wage” cause of action. Instead, he asserted claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Although services performed pursuant to a partnership agreement can constitute labor for wages (see Labor Code §200), not every partner necessary performs services subject to renumeration in the form of wages.

Here, Cannivet sued Palo for nonpayment of wages, albeit in a circuitous way. His cross-complaint, filed 04/10/17, does not include a tradition “failure to pay wage” cause of action. Instead, he asserted claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Although services performed pursuant to a partnership agreement can constitute labor for wages (see Labor Code §200), not every partner necessary performs services subject to renumeration in the form of wages.

Explanation: Plaintiff cannot support a cause of action for breach of contract, which is the foundation for 18% prejudgment interest. Breach of Contract “A cause of action for damages for breach of contract is comprised of the following elements: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388.)

Discussion The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for: (1) Involuntary Dissolution of Partnership; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Common Count: Goods and Service Rendered; (5) Common Count: Open Book Account; (6) Accounting; (7) Unjust Enrichment; (8) Nonpayment of Wages (Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 218); (9) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (10) Failure to Pay Wages When Due (Lab.

Simple breach of contract, no matter how willful and hence tortious, is not a ground for punitive damages. Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 1269, 1286. Exemplary damages are available only upon a showing that Defendant acted with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy. Id. Punitive damages for failure to pay or properly administer an insurance claim are ordinarily based on "malice" or "oppression." Id.

Nonpayment With respect to the issue of nonpayment, 2525 Main argues that “the only payment obligation at issue is the potential payment following A&R’s termination for default.” (Memo. at 12.) 2525 Main argues that because the project is ongoing and 2525 Main terminated A&R “for default” under section 17.1.4, A&R cannot bring a breach of contract because its right to payment “has simply not yet arisen.”

Defendant also argues that plaintiff is simply trying to repackage a breach of contract claim into a tort claim. Plaintiff’s fraud claim is based on Callender’s alleged promise on March 31, 2020 that plaintiff would be paid, notwithstanding the failure to pay him for his services in March of 2020 under the agreement. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Callender’s promise was false, and he intended plaintiff would rely on it and continue providing his services without payment. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.)

However, Plaintiff fully completed the Judicial Form Attachment for Breach of Contract, and it alleges the essential terms of both agreements in the First Cause of Action at BC-1 and Second Cause of Action at BC-1. (FAC, pp. 3 and 4.) Plaintiff also alleges nonpayment, which is itself a fact that must be accepted as true on demurrer. (FAC, pp. 3 and 4, BC-2 of First and Second Causes of Action.)

Each of the four causes of action asserted against Defendant Sheila Chernuchin (“Chernuchin”) arise out of an alleged breach of contract for failure to pay attorney’s fees related to different litigation wherein Plaintiff Knez Law Group LLP (“Knez”) provided Chernuchin legal services. Chernuchin asserts that all four causes of action fail as a matter of law because Knez failed to allege that Chernuchin was provided with notice of her right to client fee arbitration.

BACKGROUND: This action arises out of allegations of Defendant’s failure to pay wages owed for legal work performed by Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff Dennis J. Stankie, in propria persona , commenced this action against Defendant Dennis Gorman for (1) false promise; (2) breach of contract; and (3) nonpayment of wages. On February 16, 2021, Defendant Dennis Gorman, in propria persona , filed an answer to the complaint.

Riggers’ demurrer also states that the breach of contract claim is uncertain, but fails to provide any argument on that point. And as SPA points out, there is no breach of contract claim here.

Non-Payment of monetary sanctions is never a basis for terminating sanctions. ( Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) The court analogously finds no basis for additional monetary sanctions simply based on the failure to pay the prior monetary sanctions. The court, in its discretion, therefore denies the motion. Trial remains set for January 30, 2023. Defendants to give notice. [1] Notice of Non-Opposition flled by Defendants.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract.

Baggett seeks to recover statutory attorneys fees stemming from her claims under the Labor Code: (i) failure to pay wages under Section 1194; (ii) failure to reimburse business expenses under Section 2802; and (ii) failure to pay wages at termination under Section 218.2. Section 1194 entitles employees who receive less than the legal minimum wage or overtime compensation to recover their reasonable attorneys fees.

Defendants argue that inadequate damages were awarded for their breach of contract and nonpayment claims. The jury specifically found that Topete CPA failed to make all the monthly payments required of it under the promissory note and that Topete CPA breached the contract with Defendants, but also found that Defendants were not harmed by the nonpayment or breach. (Defs. Ex. A.)

The 4 th cause of action is essentially a claim for breach of contract for failure to pay rent, which is a term of the lease agreement. As such, this cause of action is duplicative and should be alleged in the 1 st cause of action. The demurrer to the 4 th cause of action. The Court will allow limited leave such that Shao may allege the facts regarding nonpayment of rent in the 1 st cause of action for breach of the lease agreement.

The jury found in Cannivet’s favor on both his breach of contract and quantum meruit causes of action. Because the parties elected to use a general verdict form, the jury filled in the amount of $355,455.00 as damages, without identifying whether it went to breach of contract, or quantum meruit, or both.

Waiting Time Penalties, Retaliation & Breach of Contract Plaintiff’s fourth through seventh causes of action arise out of alleged nonpayment of commissions. As above, there is a triable issue as to whether plaintiff is entitled to payment of additional booked commissions. DENIED. Unfair Competition California’s unfair competition law prohibits “unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent” business acts or practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200.

On August 1, 2018, Mark Benavides filed a cross-complaint against Chase Metals, Dan Alway, Lucas Asher, and Simon Batashvili for (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime premiums; (3) failure to pay all wages earned; (4) failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (5) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (6) failure to pay all wages upon cessation of employment; and (7) unfair competition. On August 24, 2018, Justin Ivester filed a cross-complaint.

Here, Plaintiff’s common counts seek recovery on the same set of facts as its breach of contract cause of action. Because Plaintiff has pled a proper cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff’s common counts are properly pled in the alternative. Defendant argues that “[u]ntil an express contract is avoided, an implied contract, essential to an action on a common count (McCall v.

Also, while defendant argues that plaintiff is simply trying to repackage his breach of contract claim into a tort claim by re-alleging the same facts that support his breach of contract cause of action, there are some significant differences between the two causes of action.

Furthermore, the court notes that the allegations are that the Defendants breached the lease agreement by nonpayment on April 1, 2017. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff has offered a ledger showing the payment history on the account, which appears to disclose a payment of $3,200 on April 1, 2017. (See Essa Decl. ¶ 19, Exh. C.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants for breach of contract.

That leaves the First Cause of Action, for Breach of Contract. That cause of action is not barred by the four-year statute of limitations for claims on a written contract. The FAC is clear that the breach Reed alleges is Accordia’s failure to pay the death benefit upon demand after Allen’s death in 2016, not its statements in 2011 and 2012 that the policy had lapsed for failure to pay the premiums. The death benefit could never have been due until after Allen died.

procedural history On June 9, 2017, Mathew filed the Complaint, alleging five causes of action: Failure to pay Plaintiff all wages, commissions, and benefits when due Failure to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation Failure to pay Plaintiff for rest periods and meal breaks Failure to furnish accurate wage statements and failure to keep accurate records Wrongful termination in violation of public policy On July 31, 2017, Redwood filed the XC, alleging four causes of action: Violation of Federal Computer

The 1st cause of action is for breach of contract. In an action for breach of contract, a party must plead the existence of a contract, his/her performance, the defendant's breach, and damages. Here, Plaintiff has alleged an offer in the form of a Preliminary Estimate, and acceptance in the form of the deposit check from the defendant. That is enough to allege a contract.

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to allege a claim for breach of contract by attaching the purported contract, it would be ineffective to state a claim against the individually named defendant, as the contract is with Keeth Building Contractors. To the extent that the Complaint is for breach of contract or non-payment of invoices, the claims appear to be time-barred. Moving Party to prepare the order. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to allege a claim for breach of contract by attaching the purported contract, it would be ineffective to state a claim against the individually named defendant, as the contract is with Keeth Building Contractors. To the extent that the Complaint is for breach of contract or non-payment of invoices, the claims appear to be time-barred. Moving Party to prepare the order. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to allege a claim for breach of contract by attaching the purported contract, it would be ineffective to state a claim against the individually named defendant, as the contract is with Keeth Building Contractors. To the extent that the Complaint is for breach of contract or non-payment of invoices, the claims appear to be time-barred. Moving Party to prepare the order. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to allege a claim for breach of contract by attaching the purported contract, it would be ineffective to state a claim against the individually named defendant, as the contract is with Keeth Building Contractors. To the extent that the Complaint is for breach of contract or non-payment of invoices, the claims appear to be time-barred. Moving Party to prepare the order. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to allege a claim for breach of contract by attaching the purported contract, it would be ineffective to state a claim against the individually named defendant, as the contract is with Keeth Building Contractors. To the extent that the Complaint is for breach of contract or non-payment of invoices, the claims appear to be time-barred. Moving Party to prepare the order. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to allege a claim for breach of contract by attaching the purported contract, it would be ineffective to state a claim against the individually named defendant, as the contract is with Keeth Building Contractors. To the extent that the Complaint is for breach of contract or non-payment of invoices, the claims appear to be time-barred. Moving Party to prepare the order. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to allege a claim for breach of contract by attaching the purported contract, it would be ineffective to state a claim against the individually named defendant, as the contract is with Keeth Building Contractors. To the extent that the Complaint is for breach of contract or non-payment of invoices, the claims appear to be time-barred. Moving Party to prepare the order. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING

Case Number: 20SMCV01558 Hearing Date: September 5, 2023 Dept: I Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against defendants. The complaint involves a lease made to a start-up venture called Affinity House. The obligations under the lease were guaranteed by defendants ONeill and Chazanas. The property was to be used to house various individuals in a co-living arrangement, although plainly Affinity itself was and is a business enterprise.

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Nonpayment of Wages, Waiting Time Penalties, Failure to Indemnify Expenses, Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. RULING : Overruled. Defendants filed a notice of appeal and appeal on October 21, 2022, and November 1, 2022, regarding the order denying the motion to compel arbitration heard on October 4, 2022.

As for time attributed to the first cause of action for breach of contract, the second cause of action or conversion, and the third cause of action for unjust enrichment, the Court agrees with Defendants that attorney time attributable to those causes of action is not recoverable. In reply, Plaintiff argues that the breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims were inextricably intertwined with Plaintiffs employment claims. The Court disagrees.

The essential allegations of a common count are: (1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum; (2) the consideration – i.e., goods sold, work done, etc.; and, (3) nonpayment. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) The Complaint alleges the amount of the debt incurred for labor, materials, and equipment furnished, and non-payment.

Demurrer First Cause of Action, Breach of Contract : SUSTAINED, With Leave.

(“MAI”); Maguire Development, LLC (“MD”); Maguire Development 8361, LLC (“8361”); Maguire Development 8390, LLC (“8390”); Maguire Development 8433, LLC (“8433”) (collectively “Defendants”); and Does 1-50 for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud and deceit; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) violation of B&P section 17200; (5) nonpayment of wages; (6) waiting time penalties; and (7) declaratory relief. On June 27, 2017, Defendants filed the instant demurrer to complaint.

action and for uncertainty, (10) the Ninth Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Failure to state a cause of action and for uncertainty, amd (11) the Tenth Cause of Action for Retaliation for Failure to state a cause of action and for uncertainty are all SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract: Complaint alleges that there was a written contract between plaintiff and defendant which is attached to the complaint. The contract indicates that on March 17, 2019 the debt ($83,926) was due. the complaint alleges full performance by the plaintiff, a demand on defendant to pay the debt, non-payment of the debt by the defendant, and that the debt is due and owing within interest. The complaint sufficiently alleges a breach of contract.

Breach of contract (second cause of action) A claim for breach of contract requires a pleading of (1) existence of the contract; (2) defendant’s performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) plaintiff’s breach; and (4) damages as a result of the breach. (CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Breach of contract (second cause of action) A claim for breach of contract requires a pleading of (1) existence of the contract; (2) defendant’s performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) plaintiff’s breach; and (4) damages as a result of the breach. (CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Breach of contract (second cause of action) A claim for breach of contract requires a pleading of (1) existence of the contract; (2) defendant’s performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) plaintiff’s breach; and (4) damages as a result of the breach. (CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Breach of contract (second cause of action) A claim for breach of contract requires a pleading of (1) existence of the contract; (2) defendant’s performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) plaintiff’s breach; and (4) damages as a result of the breach. (CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Breach of contract (second cause of action) A claim for breach of contract requires a pleading of (1) existence of the contract; (2) defendant’s performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) plaintiff’s breach; and (4) damages as a result of the breach. (CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Breach of contract (second cause of action) A claim for breach of contract requires a pleading of (1) existence of the contract; (2) defendant’s performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) plaintiff’s breach; and (4) damages as a result of the breach. (CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Breach of contract (second cause of action) A claim for breach of contract requires a pleading of (1) existence of the contract; (2) defendant’s performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) plaintiff’s breach; and (4) damages as a result of the breach. (CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; 3. Violation of Labor Code § 1194.2; 4. Violation of Labor Code §§ 202 and 203; 5. Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200; and 6. Breach of Contract.

The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for Breach of Contract based on Defendant’s alleged failure to pay monthly rent pursuant to a rental agreement for the real property located at 2505 East Marlena Street, West Covina, CA. On October 2, 2020, Norma Rodriguez filed the Cross-Complaint against Eva D. Lorens and Roes 1 through 10. The Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Habitability; Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Negligence; and Breach of Contract.

Plaintiff specifically stipulated that he "agrees that he will not pursue any claim against Oak Furniture except for his claim for damages for the alleged non-payment of Phantom Equity Rights." (ROA #26 [Emphasis added].) The stipulation became an order of the Court. Plaintiff's complaint already includes a claim for damages as to non-payment of Phantom Equity Rights. The stipulation precludes Plaintiff's proposed amendment.

A. 1 st cause of action for breach of contract The essential elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff. ( Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cause of action for breach of contract against Centinela for failure to pay the holdover and CAM charges. Accordingly, Centinelas motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Prevailing party on motion is ordered to give notice of ruling.

Non-Payment of monetary sanctions is never a basis for terminating sanctions. ( Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) The court analogously finds no basis for additional monetary sanctions simply based on the failure to pay the prior monetary sanctions. The court, in its discretion, therefore denies the motion. Trial remains set for January 30, 2023. Defendants to give notice.

This evidence carries Nautilus’ initial burden of proof with respect to the breach of contract cause of action and shows that Cross-Complainant cannot prove a necessary element: his performance or excuse for non-performance under the contract. (See Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1387.) Furthermore, the failure to pay premium is grounds for cancellation of an insurance policy. (Cal. Ins. Code, § 661.)

BACKGROUND On May 8, 2019, plaintiff Sanrio, Inc. filed a complaint against Fab Starpoint LLC for (1) breach of contract – failure to pay royalties, (2) breach of contract – sales to unauthorized channels, (3) breach of contract – one-time authorization agreements, (4) breach of contract – failure to contribute to marketing and retail development funds, (5) breach of contract – failure to make annual marketing and promotion expenditures, (6) breach of contract – failure to pay annual style guide fees, (7) breach

Second cause of action: breach of guarantor agreement based on nonpayment of arbitration award against Green America totaling $1,440,107.76. Jones also argues that the FAC fails to state a breach of the guarantor agreement for Jones’ failure to pay the arbitration award against Green America because an arbitration award against the principal alone cannot be deemed an award against the surety.

Ultimately, only the breach of contract CV2101145 claims and the fraud claim proceeded to trial. (SOD, p. 3.) The jury! found in favor of Defendant on all of these claims. (/d. at p. 3.)

Ultimately, only the breach of contract CV2101145 claims and the fraud claim proceeded to trial. (SOD, p. 3.) The jury! found in favor of Defendant on all of these claims. (/d. at p. 3.)

Ultimately, only the breach of contract CV2101145 claims and the fraud claim proceeded to trial. (SOD, p. 3.) The jury! found in favor of Defendant on all of these claims. (/d. at p. 3.)

Ultimately, only the breach of contract CV2101145 claims and the fraud claim proceeded to trial. (SOD, p. 3.) The jury! found in favor of Defendant on all of these claims. (/d. at p. 3.)

Ultimately, only the breach of contract CV2101145 claims and the fraud claim proceeded to trial. (SOD, p. 3.) The jury! found in favor of Defendant on all of these claims. (/d. at p. 3.)

Ultimately, only the breach of contract CV2101145 claims and the fraud claim proceeded to trial. (SOD, p. 3.) The jury! found in favor of Defendant on all of these claims. (/d. at p. 3.)

Ultimately, only the breach of contract CV2101145 claims and the fraud claim proceeded to trial. (SOD, p. 3.) The jury! found in favor of Defendant on all of these claims. (/d. at p. 3.)

Also, Plaintiff has not shown that Lee’s license expired for a reason other than failure to pay renewal fees. Moreover, the Court has discretion under this statute, and it is conditioned upon Plaintiff being deemed the prevailing party as discussed below. Plaintiff additionally argues that it is entitled to an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party pursuant to Civil Code § 1717. Civ.