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

What Is Breach of Contract for Not Paying in Full or On Time?

Failure to pay in accordance with a contract constitutes a failure to perform, which is the second element of a breach of contract cause of action.

Rights and Obligations

Right to Payment

“Although the statutes are designed to facilitate prompt payment, the right to payment in full is not unconditional. Where a dispute arises between a payor and payee, the statutes guaranteeing timely payment of progress and retention amounts contain a standard exception permitting the owner or direct contractor to withhold up to 150 percent of the amount in dispute from the contractor or subcontractor, respectively.” (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 1082, 1088 (internal citations omitted)).

Obligation to Pay

Commercial Code § 2703 provides for the obligation of buyers of goods “to make a payment due on or before delivery”:

“Mere failure to accept a tender does not discharge the obligation to pay money. An offer to pay extinguishes the obligation only if the amount is deposited in the name of the creditor, and such deposit must be unconditional, and so made that the deposit becomes at once the property of the creditor.” (Verdier v. Verdier (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 325, 333 (internal citations omitted)).

“The failure to pay wages due and overtime constitutes a violation of California’s unfair business practice law. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1152). The only forms of relief available for an unfair competition law violation are injunctive relief and/or restitution. (Id. at 1144).

Where the buyer wrongfully rejects or revokes acceptance of goods or fails to make a payment due on or before delivery or repudiates with respect to a part or the whole, then with respect to any goods directly affected and, if the breach is of the whole contract (§ 2612), then also with respect to the whole undelivered balance, the aggrieved seller may

  1. Withhold delivery of such goods;
  2. Stop delivery by any bailee as hereafter provided (§ 2705);
  3. Proceed under the next section respecting goods still unidentified to the contract;
  4. Resell and recover damages as hereafter provided (§ 2706);
  5. Recover damages for nonacceptance (§ 2708) or in a proper case the price (§ 2709);

Partial Payment

“As a general rule, part payment of a debt or obligation is sufficient to extend the bar of the statute. The theory on which this is based is that the payment is an acknowledgment of the existence of the indebtedness which raises an implied promise to continue the obligation and to pay the balance.” (Martindell v. Bodrero (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 56, 59).

"No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract, by which to take the case out of the operation of this title, unless the same is contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby, provided that any payment on account of principal or interest due on a promissory note made by the party to be charged shall be deemed a sufficient acknowledgment or promise of a continuing contract to stop, from time to time as any such payment is made, the running of the time within which an action may be commenced upon the principal sum or upon any installment of principal or interest due on such note, and to start the running of a new period of time, but no such payment of itself shall revive a cause of action once barred." (Code Civ. Proc. § 360).

Statute of Limitations

A claim for breach of contract generally accrues when a party to the contract fails to perform an obligation by the date such performance was due, such as a failure to make a timely payment. (Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 966). Payment made on a debt after the statute of limitations has started to run but before it has expired constitutes an acknowledgment of the debt that restarts the limitations period. (Eilke v. Rice (1955) 45 Cal.2d 66, 72-73).

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

The Court awarded plaintiff $64,810 against Murphy individually and dba RBP Software Solutions for breach of contract, failure to provide legally compliant wage statements (Labor Code § 226), non-payment of wages at termination (Labor Code § 201), and failure to provide meal and rest periods (Labor Code § 226.7). Id. Plaintiff recovered nothing on her claims for wrongful discharge, non-payment of earned wages, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to pay minimum wage. Id.

  • Name

    BUXBAUM VS. MALLOY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00037381-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

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.

  • Name

    THE BARAKAT FAMILY TRUST VS PETOLOGY, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00241

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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.

  • Name

    SAM SEGAL ET AL VS BIDDING UNLIMITED INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC704544

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

The express language of the moratoria applies to evictions, not complaints for damages for breach of contract of a tenant no longer in possession of the premises.

  • Name

    CARSON-NORMANDIE PLAZA, LLC VS NABEEL HUSSAIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CMCV00082

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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

  • Name

    BUXBAUM VS. MALLOY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00037381-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

The Complaint purports to allege causes of action for (1) breach of contract; and (2) common counts. (Compl., ¶¶BC and CC.) However, no facts are alleged in support of either cause of action. The elements of a breach of contract claim are (1) existence of contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach (or anticipatory breach); and (4) resulting damage to plaintiff. (Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1387.)

  • Name

    TEDDY ANIM-BEDWA VS ALEXANDRA APARTMENTS

  • Case No.

    19STLC11259

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

After a fire occurred at the site, plaintiff sued the contractor for the contractor’s failure to pay for plaintiff’s services. In its answer, the contractor asserted a setoff claim, arguing that plaintiff was legally responsible for the fire damage.

  • Name

    IREIT FRESNO EL PASEO, LLC VS. ROBERT NAIFY

  • Case No.

    21CECG03397

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

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.

  • Name

    JOHN DOBBS VS. CENTRAL AUTO RECOVERY SERVICE INC

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00116395-CU-OE-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2012

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL MCALISTER VS LAWRENCE DEUTSCH

  • Case No.

    21SMCV00260

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    KEVIN MODA VS KASEY DIBA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01498

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

An employee seeking recovery of a contractual right to payment of wages is, of course, entitled to sue for breach of contract or, absent a written agreement, for quantum meruit. But that is far from all. The Legislature has repeatedly acted to supplement these common law remedies with statutory remedies.

  • Name

    HEE KWAN EUN VS JAE KEUN CHUNG, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV08546

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

An employee seeking recovery of a contractual right to payment of wages is, of course, entitled to sue for breach of contract or, absent a written agreement, for quantum meruit. But that is far from all. The Legislature has repeatedly acted to supplement these common law remedies with statutory remedies.

  • Name

    YOUNG JIN KIM VS KASLAX SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11270

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

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.

  • Name

    AZPB REM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS. WEST AMERICA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00029154-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Defendant Amaru demurs to the first cause of action for breach of contract on the grounds that Plaintiffs claim is barred by the statute of limitations. To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege (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.

  • Name

    CAPUCINE JACKSON VS AMARU ENTERTAINMENT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV34567

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    LON AND ESTHER YATMAN INDIVIDUALS VS. LARRY GOLDMAN AND

  • Case No.

    EC066438

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DETROP PROPERTIES, LLC VS. RUBEN KHRAYAN

  • Case No.

    TC029040

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    BRANMARK GROUP LLC VS BADBOY MOTORS INCORPORATED ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC613027

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

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.

  • Name

    MAR BAY VENTURES, INC. V. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS055194

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2023

  • County

    Solano County, CA

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.

  • Name

    MAR BAY VENTURES, INC. V. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS055194

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2023

  • County

    Solano County, CA

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.

  • Name

    MAR BAY VENTURES, INC. V. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS055194

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2023

  • County

    Solano County, CA

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.

  • Name

    MAR BAY VENTURES, INC. V. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS055194

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2023

  • County

    Solano County, CA

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.

  • Name

    MAR BAY VENTURES, INC. V. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS055194

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2023

  • County

    Solano County, CA

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.

  • Name

    COASTHILLS CREDIT UNION V. CODY LESTER, TAMARA MCGINTY

  • Case No.

    17LC-0519

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    GUSTAVO LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND, ON BEHALF OF UHHLALA HOLDINGS LLC VS UULALA INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV12523

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2021

First Cause of Action (i.e., Breach of Contract) The elements for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendants breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff. ( Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of America (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.)

  • Name

    PAUL J. ADAIR VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19PSCV00299

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    DENTONS US LLP VS THE NEWBY FAMILY TRUST

  • Case No.

    RIC1820886

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

BACKGROUND On December 28, 2021, plaintiff Calstate Construction Solutions, Inc. filed a complaint against New Life Textured Painting Company, Eduardo Padron, and Yolanda Padron for breach of contract and fraud. LEGAL AUTHORITY When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.

  • Name

    CALSTATE CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC. VS NEW LIFE TEXTURED PAINTING COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21TRCV00929

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    EVANS, JASON VS T AND D COMMUNICATIONS, INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    MSL22-00321

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    PSYCH SUNGLASSES LLC VS GOT SHADES INTERNATIONAL INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC667536

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2018

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.

  • Name

    PALO CAPITAL, INC. V. CANNIVET

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00904772

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

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.

  • Name

    PALO CAPITAL V. CANNIVET

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00904772-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    GAHVEJIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. V. LOS KITOS PRODUCE, LLC.

  • Case No.

    16CECG00424

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2016

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.

  • Name

    JRWCM LLC VS PACIFIC REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP

  • Case No.

    37-2021-00053083-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

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.

  • Name

    HENRI DORSEY VS CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00039332-CU-IC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2017

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.”

  • Name

    A&R CORPORATION, INC. V. 2525 MAIN APARTMENT LP

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01105657

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

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.

  • Name

    KNEZ LAW GROUP, LLP V. SHEILA ANN CHERNUCHIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    PSC 1704759

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DENNIS J. STANKIE VS DENNIS GORMAN

  • Case No.

    20STCV48887

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

Finally, Defendants failure to pay rent has caused Plaintiff damages in the amount of $86,183.71 in rent and late fees owed under the Lease and $15,073.76 in prejudgment interest. (Cramer Decl., ¶¶ 3-8, Ex. A and B; Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Augustini Decl., ¶¶11-14; RFA Nos. 2-28.) Thus, Plaintiff has proved the elements of its First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract. Thus, the burden shifts to Defendant to prove a triable issue of fact.

  • Name

    BRISTOL CENTRAL, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS RONEIDA ESPINAL

  • Case No.

    22NWCV01750

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ANDREAS GEORGE, ET AL. VS JIA LUN SHAO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23BBCV01301

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    CHASE METALS INC VS MARK A BENAVIDES

  • Case No.

    BC709355

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

Failure to pay owed commission can constitute an unfair business practice. Nein v. HostPro, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 833, 854. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff is entitled to booked commissions. DENIED. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.

  • Name

    BRIAN RAPOSO, ET AL. VS THOMAS GALLAWAY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01913

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    PALO CAPITAL, INC. V. CANNIVET

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00904772

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

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.

  • Name

    EMAD YOUNIS VS ROBERT MELGOZA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00166

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants Claim for Non-Payment of Promissory Note and Breach of Contract With respect to their cross-claims, Defendants argue that the record shows substantial evidence that they were harmed from Topete CPAs breach of contract and lack of payment on the $60,000 promissory note. Defendants state that there is evidence from Dr. Luna that only $12,455 was paid, therefore, they are entitled to damages of at least $47,545.

  • Name

    TOPETE CPA, LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS AVO ASDOURIAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20GDCV00922

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    NEXTGEN VS. SERGMD, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00906924-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2017

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.

  • Name

    KENSTRUCTION INC VS. CRH CALIFORNIA WATER

  • Case No.

    56-2021-00550424-CU-CL-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2021

Breach of Contract “[T]he 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 the plaintiff.” (Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1244.) Plaintiff has named Defendants Ashlee Herring and Brett Herring in this action.

  • Name

    COLLECT ACCESS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ASHLEE HERRING, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV24077

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

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.

  • Name

    LIGHTHOUSE BROOKS LLC VS ROBERT O'NEILL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV01558

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2023

  • Judge

    6/18/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is based on the agreement between plaintiff and the CA/HI NAACP that was formed in August of 2019, in which CA/HI NAACP promised to pay plaintiff $2,000 per month for his services for a span of two years. (Complaint, ¶¶ 32-35.) However, the 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 ¶ 51.)

  • Name

    LEROY CANDLER, JR VS. RICK CALLENDER

  • Case No.

    22CECG00930

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2024

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

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.

  • Name

    FRENKEN VS. WELTER

  • Case No.

    MSC17-01529

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2019

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

  • Name

    JORDAN MATHEW VS REDWOOD GOLD GROUP INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC664649

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

The demurrer otherwise improperly relies on extrinsic inference beyond the scope of the complaint. 3 rd Cause of Action: Waiting Time Penalties Defendant challenges the subject claim on grounds of lack of an agreement, and lack of any willful failure to pay wages. Plaintiff counters that the argument relies on extrinsic reference.

  • Name

    JAN MINKOVICH VS WILLIAM D CORBETT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00377

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    CRAIG MECHANICAL, INC. VS BINNQUIST DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED

  • Case No.

    RIC2002374

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

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.

  • Name

    CYRUS NOWNEJAD VS KENNETH RALIDIS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CV-00746

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2023

  • County

    Merced County, CA

Section 203 provides for continuing wage penalties for the employer’s willful failure to pay wages. (See Lab. Code, § 203; Price, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at 1144.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay the $600,000 owed to him in wages during his course of employment, as well as upon separation. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 54-55.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ failure to pay wages was willful in that Defendants knew the wages were due and owing, promised to pay such wages, yet failed to do so.

  • Name

    TIM WRAY VS ROBERT F MAGUIRE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC645053

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2017

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

  • Name

    JOHNSON SOLAR CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHENG WAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV39151

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS STREET CAFE BY AROMA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20VECV00511

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

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.

  • Name

    EVA D. LORENS VS NORMA L. RODRIGUEZ

  • Case No.

    20STLC07378

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, the elements of a breach of contract claim have been stated. However, the complaint lacks the date upon which the breach occurred. (See Compl. at p.3, PLD-C-001(1) at § BC-2.) Plaintiff should allege the date of the purported breach for failure to pay rent and the date upon which the property was damaged, as well as the nature of the damage to the rented property. The demurrer to the 1 st cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

  • Name

    MUNSIE FAMILY TRUST LLC VS ZOHRA ISMAIL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23BBCV01619

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DAVID CORBIN ("Plaintiff") seeks leave to amend to add a cause of action for promissory fraud and add additional claims for damages related to the breach of contract claim. While the Court is normally bound to liberally grant requests for leave to amend, the parties stipulated that the pleadings would be limited.

  • Name

    CORBIN VS OAK FURNITURE WEST LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00043280-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2021

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.

  • Name

    EMAD YOUNIS VS ROBERT MELGOZA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00166

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    SCOTTSDALE INDEMNITY COMPANY VS D-ELECTRONICS JUNK COLLECTOR AND

  • Case No.

    17K05009

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    KOOKOO GRILL, INC. VS. DAE SUNG CONSTRUCTION & ENG., INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00854792-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2018

Cause of Action: Breach of Contract “[T]he 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 the plaintiff.” (Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1244.)

  • Name

    ON DECK CAPITAL, INC. VS JOSE M. COLLAZO

  • Case No.

    20STCV00802

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

of contractfailure to pay interest on late payments, (8) breach of contractfailure to pay interest on audit findings, (9) breach of contractfailure to pay audit expenses, (10) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (11) reimbursement of Sanrio’s attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation.

  • Name

    SANRIO, INC. VS FAB STARPOINT LLC

  • Case No.

    19TRCV00410

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

Defendant has not disputed any of the charges, monthly billings, or purchases made on his account, (SS No. 9,) The balance on Defendant‘s account is overdue because of Defendant’s failure to pay it, leaving Plaintiff damaged in the amount of $1 1,607.42. (SS No, 11-12.) Standard for Summary Judgment A plaintiff moving for summary judgment meets his or her burden of proof by showing there is no defense to each cause of action by proving each element of the cause of action. (Code Civ.

  • Name

    WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS, EDGAR W. LIHN

  • Case No.

    CV1901019

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

Breach of Contract (1st Cause of Action) “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.

  • Name

    ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. VS PAUL N. TAUGER

  • Case No.

    18STLC09070

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract also include resulting damages. (Acoustics, Inc. v. Trepte Constr. Co. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 887, 913.) The elements of a cause of action for common counts includes nonpayment of an indebtedness. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) Defendant has submitted UMFs and evidence to show that after this action commenced, Anaplex fully paid Plaintiff the amount owed under their agreement.

  • Name

    ASHWORTH LEININGER VS CASTELLON

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00498579-CU-CL-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2018

Among these causes are the first cause of action regarding relief from ADR provisions, the third cause of action involving the alleged failure to pay wages on the appropriate date, the fourth cause of action failing to pay deferred compensation as allegedly owed under plaintiff's May 2, 2002 employment agreement, the sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement, and the ninth cause of action concerning the alleged failure to pay past due wages under the contract of employment.

  • Name

    CHARLES K LETTS VS. GRAY & PROUTY PLC

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00103030-CU-BC-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2011

Motion For Summary Adjudication Issue No. 1: “The first cause of action for non-payment of wages should be dismissed since, as a matter of law, defendant never had an agreement to pay the demanded wages.” Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s first cause of action for nonpayment of wages because it never agreed to pay these wages and because Plaintiff did not bring in the Costco account.

  • Name

    JOHN P KRAUS VS ULTIMATE CREATIONS INC

  • Case No.

    BC686840

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

Plaintiffs breach of contract action seeks damages for failure to pay rent (Case No. 22SMCV00794). Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases to this UD matter; the Court deemed the matters related on July 18, 2022. This is a UD action; 22SMCV00794 is a breach of contract action for unpaid rent. These are not the same causes of action. It is immaterial that the actions are deemed related. Further, the actions concern defendants failure to pay rent during different time periods. OVERRULED.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV01005

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

However, the notice described the past due amount of $4,825 as “non-payment of rents through 2/28/19.” Cal-American Income Property Fund IV v. Ho (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 583, 585. Plaintiff personally served Defendant with a Notice to Quit for Defendant’s failure to pay the past due, pre-COVID monetary obligation, pursuant to the notice dated 6/16/21. Complaint, page 11. Plaintiff seeks past due rent incurred through 2/28/19.

  • Case No.

    21CMUD00355

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Therefore, the reason for the failure to pay fees is immaterial. Defendant only requests relief under C.C.P., § 473(b) due to its mistake in failing to timely pay the invoice. However, Defendant cites to no authority applying C.C.P. § 473 relief in connection with the instant motion. Indeed, in Espinoza v. Superior Court (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 761, 775, the Court found C.C.P., § 1281.97 is unambiguous and “contains no exceptions for substantial compliance, unintentional nonpayment or absence of prejudice.”

  • Name

    CHAMBERS VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVSW2204384

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Therefore, the reason for the failure to pay fees is immaterial. Defendant only requests relief under C.C.P., § 473(b) due to its mistake in failing to timely pay the invoice. However, Defendant cites to no authority applying C.C.P. § 473 relief in connection with the instant motion. Indeed, in Espinoza v. Superior Court (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 761, 775, the Court found C.C.P., § 1281.97 is unambiguous and “contains no exceptions for substantial compliance, unintentional nonpayment or absence of prejudice.”

  • Name

    CHAMBERS VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVSW2204384

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Therefore, the reason for the failure to pay fees is immaterial. Defendant only requests relief under C.C.P., § 473(b) due to its mistake in failing to timely pay the invoice. However, Defendant cites to no authority applying C.C.P. § 473 relief in connection with the instant motion. Indeed, in Espinoza v. Superior Court (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 761, 775, the Court found C.C.P., § 1281.97 is unambiguous and “contains no exceptions for substantial compliance, unintentional nonpayment or absence of prejudice.”

  • Name

    CHAMBERS VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVSW2204384

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Defendant challenges plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of written lease agreement, arguing that the allegations of the complaint fail to state a claim for breach of contract. The court disagrees. To plead a cause of action for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of the contact, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. Acoustics, Inc. v.

  • Name

    ROIC CALIFORNIA LLC VS RIBCO INC

  • Case No.

    20CV02391

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

Good Faith Under California law, [c]ontract liability is strict liability, and [t]he obligor is therefore liable in damages for breach of contract even if he is without fault and even if circumstances have made the contract more burdensome or less desirable than he had anticipated. ( In re Marriage of Hibbard (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1018 fn. 5.) Thus, good faith is not a defense to breach of contract.

  • Name

    WEST CASITAS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SWING HOUSE STAGES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    21STCV37974

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

It is ascertainable here what breach of contract the complaint charges: failure to pay for purchases or cash advances under a written credit card agreement. Any further information that the defendant needs can be determined by discovery. Defendant shall file and serve his Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint by no later than March 12, 2010.

  • Name

    CAPITAL ONE BANK USA NA VS. REX A BURTCHELL

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00361130-CL-CL-SIM

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2010

Therefore, the Court will not rule on the demurrer for uncertainty. 1st Cause of Action for Breach of Contract The elements of a breach of contract cause of action are (1) existence of contract; (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendants breach (or anticipatory breach); and (4) resulting damage. ( Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

  • Case No.

    22STLC07941

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2023

  • Judge

    Echo Dawn Ryan

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Fish I, LLC for breach of contract and common counts arising out of non-payment of a personal guaranty for items purchased. Tentative ruling: Deny without prejudice. Plaintiff must provide: · Original agreement · Declaration explaining copy of agreement · Proposed order accepting authenticated copy of agreement · Attorney’s fee declaration and calculation · Interest computation at 10% annum Next dates: Notice:

  • Name

    M&J SEAFOOD COMPANY, INC. VS. JOSEPH DELALUZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    TC029053

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

.; and b) adds a new 3rd cause of action against AT&T for breach of contract based on AT&T's nonpayment of the 12 invoices. 2. Plaintiffs substantially comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1324(a)(l) through (a)(3), by attaching a copy of the proposed first amended complaint as an exhibit to the declaration of plaintiffs' counsel Richard W. Hundley; and by describing the proposed amendments in the moving brief. 3.

  • Name

    CARUSO MECHANICAL INC. VS. BIBBY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00372530-CU-CO-SIM

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2010

“The simple failure to pay money owed does not constitute conversion.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 267, 284.) Here, Plaintiff attempts to convert a breach of contract and failure to pay claim into a conversion claim by alleging that Defendants “intentionally and substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s property by taking possession of the shipment, preventing Plaintiff from having access to the shipment, and frustrating Plaintiff’s efforts in collecting.” (Compl. ¶ 51.)

  • Name

    TSANN KUEN ZHANGZHOU ENTERPRISE VS MTN PRODUCTS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC641882

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2017

However, whether the Moratorium applies in the instant action depends on facts (i.e., such as the reason for Defendant’s failure to pay rent and whether Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of his inability to pay rent within the seven day period) extraneous to the face of the complaint.

  • Name

    ROIC CALIFORNIA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ANTONIO FRAYRE

  • Case No.

    20PSCV00603

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

However, whether the Moratorium applies in the instant action depends on facts (i.e., such as the reason for Defendant’s failure to pay rent and whether Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of his inability to pay rent within the seven day period) extraneous to the face of the complaint.

  • Name

    ROIC CALIFORNIA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ANTONIO FRAYRE

  • Case No.

    20PSCV00603

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(Fourth Amended Complaint, Breach of Contract.)

  • Name

    ROSE TAYLOR VS CALVIN BROADUS, JR

  • Case No.

    19STCV33445

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

Defendants argue that the 2 nd cause of action fails to allege whether it is based on the breach of contract cause of action or whether it is based on a different contract. However, a common counts cause of action only needs a statement of indebtedness, consideration, and nonpayment. Although the details are admittedly sparse, Plaintiff has alleged each of these elements. Defendants also argue that the common counts claim is untimely for the same reasons as the breach of contract cause of action.

  • Name

    VAHIK ZADORIAN VS A&J AUTO PARTS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22BBCV00729

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code § 17200, (2) declaratory relief, (3) breach of contract, (4) violation of Penal Code § 496, (5) fraud, (6) fraudulent concealment, and (7) nonpayment of wages. Among other things, Cross-Complainants allege that the Digital Dolphin entities fraudulently underpaid commissions on sales of personal protective equipment (PPE). Defendants Justin Cotton and Quire Office Products LLC now seek to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to their special interrogatories, nos. 129-140.

  • Name

    DIGITAL DOLPHIN SUPPLIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JUSTIN COTTON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV00223

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

R Chapter 3, LLC et al., Case No. 20SMCV00531 Hearing Date June 27, 2022 (continued from June 22, 2022) Mashians Motion to Preclude Relitigating the First Amended Cross-Complaint as Defense Plaintiff Mashian Group sues defendant R Chapter 3 for nonpayment of attorneys fees. RC3 cross-complained, alleging fraud, breach of contract and legal malpractice.

  • Name

    MASHIAN LAW GROUP VS R CHAPTER 3, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00531

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant Brandwizard LLC's demurrer to the sole cause of action for breach of contract in the complaint filed by plaintiff Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. is overruled. Automated has sufficiently alleged a viable claim for breach of written contract seeking specified damages for nonpayment of a contract sum. Contrary to Brandwizard's memoranda, nothing in the complaint states or suggests that Brandwizard did not breach the alleged contract.

  • Name

    AUTOMATED MEDIA PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, INC. VS. BRANDWIZARD, LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC18564581

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2018

Stoler (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1384 [ A party to a contract has two different remedies when it has been injured by a breach of contract or fraud and lacks the ability or desire to keep the contract alive. The party may disaffirm the contract, treating it as rescinded, and recover damages resulting from the rescission. Alternatively, the party may affirm the contract, treating it as repudiated, and recover damages for breach of contract or fraud].)

  • Name

    CHARLES LEWIS, ET AL. VS NEW AGE KALEIDOSCOPE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22PSCV00120

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

However, it is unclear whether the breach of contract cause of action and reformation of contract actions are related to the consignment of jewelry or to the loan for $500,000. As such, the Court finds the Complaint to be uncertain and the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the breach of contract and reformation causes of action alleged.

  • Name

    SAM SEGAL ET AL VS BIDDING UNLIMITED INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC704544

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

However, it is unclear whether the breach of contract cause of action and reformation of contract actions are related to the consignment of jewelry or to the loan for $500,000. As such, the Court finds the Complaint to be uncertain and the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the breach of contract and reformation causes of action alleged.

  • Name

    SAM SEGAL ET AL VS BIDDING UNLIMITED INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC704544

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2018

This action arises out of Defendant Hi Energy Production Inc.’s breach of contract due to nonpayment on a Term Note in the amount of $350,000.00 and a Credit Agreement (the Contract). (Separate Statement (SS) 1). Defendant Vahagn V. Antonyan personally guaranteed payment under the Contract. (SS 2).

  • Name

    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS HI ENERGY PRODUCTION INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CHCV00503

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant was liable to Plaintiff for LA Class and Santiago Express’ nonpayment. Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract – Retail Producer Agreement, (2) breach of contract – promissory note, (3) account stated, (4) goods and services rendered, (5) open book account. Plaintiff’s Complaint prays for damages in the amount of $26,151.55 plus interest.

  • Name

    RINGWALT & LIESCHE CO. VS INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE BROKER, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV01015

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

” ( Ibid. ) First Cause of Action – Breach of Contract Goodlett demurs to the first cause of action for breach of contract on the grounds that there is another action pending between the parties on the same claim. (Demurrer at p. 5.) A party may demurrer to an action on the grounds that “[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (c).)

  • Name

    4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, VS JESSE PIMENTEL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STLC01995

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The complaint does not address the ordinance and simply alleges breach of contract. The Court rejects defendants argument that because plaintiff is suing for nonpayment of rent, compliance with the ordinance should have been alleged. Plaintiff alleges defendant Manifest failed to pay its pro-rata share of operating expenses and late charges, as well as rent. Complaint, ¶¶ 14-15. The breach of the lease claim is not solely premised on nonpayment of rent.

  • Name

    DOUGLAS EMMETT 1997, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MANIFEST 3, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23SMCV04153

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

“By reason of Defendants and each of their breach and failure to pay Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages for breach of contract in the sum of $20,205.05 . . .” (Compl. ¶¶ BC-1-BC-4.) Plaintiff also alleges that the contract was oral. (Id. ¶ BC-1.)

  • Name

    JG TECHNICAL ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC. VS JOE MOLLER EVENTS, INC.

  • Case No.

    18STLC04950

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith

  • Name

    CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    PSC2004149

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith

  • Name

    CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    PSC2004149

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith

  • Name

    CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    PSC2004149

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope