Momentum Commercial Funding, LLC v. Beasley
Filing
20
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/17/17. The Court GRANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Momentum's Motion to Dismiss Beasley's counterclaim 10 . If Beasley wants to file a first amended counterclaim, he shall file it within twenty days from the date of this Order. Momentum's responsive pleadings are due within twenty days thereafter. If Beasley elects not to amend his counterclaim, the case will proceed on Momentum's breach of contract claim. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
MOMENTUM COMMERCIAL FUNDING,
LLC, a California limited
liability company,
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No.
2:16-cv-02085-JAM-CKD
ORDER GRANTING COUNTER
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
MICHAEL P. BEASLEY, JR., aka
MICHAEL PAUL BEASLEY, JR.,
16
17
18
Defendant.
MICHAEL P. BEASLEY, JR., aka
MICHAEL PAUL BEASLEY, JR.,
Counter Claimant,
19
20
21
22
23
24
v.
MOMENTUM COMMERCIAL FUNDING,
LLC, a California limited
liability company,
Counter Defendant.
A 2012 Rolls-Royce Ghost EWB spawned this litigation.
25
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Momentum Commercial Funding, LLC
26
(“Momentum”) leased the luxury vehicle to a professional
27
basketball player, Defendant-Counter Claimant Michael P. Beasley,
28
1
1
Jr. (“Beasley”).
2
sued him for breach of contract.
3
Momentum, arguing that the contract violated California’s Vehicle
4
Leasing Act (“VLA”).
5
Beasley’s Counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6).
6
opposes.
Believing Beasley shortchanged it, Momentum
ECF No. 7.
ECF No. 1.
Then Beasley sued
Momentum now moves to dismiss
ECF No. 10.
Beasley
ECF No. 13. 1
7
8
I.
9
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Momentum leased a Rolls-Royce to Beasley.
See Equipment
10
Lease Agreement (“Lease”), attached to Counterclaim as Exh. A.
11
Beasley agreed to make monthly payments during the 37-month lease
12
term and to return the Rolls-Royce once the term expired.
13
1.
14
addenda to the Lease.
15
attached to Counterclaim as Exh. B; Addendum #2 to Equipment
16
Lease Agreement, attached to Counterclaim as Exh. C; TRAC Lease
17
Addendum to Equipment Lease Agreement, attached to Counterclaim
18
as Exh. D.
19
Id. at
After receiving the Rolls-Royce, Beasley also signed three
See Addendum to Equipment Lease Agreement,
Over time, Momentum and Beasley’s contractual relationship
20
soured.
21
the Rolls-Royce in “horrible condition.”
22
Beasley refused to pay the $122,810.76 Momentum alleges he owes,
23
Momentum sued Beasley for breaching the Lease.
24
Beasley responded by suing Momentum for violating the VLA’s
25
disclosure requirements, contending that these violations
26
1
27
28
Beasley failed to make several payments, and he returned
Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.
After
Id. ¶ 14.
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for February 7, 2017. In deciding this motion, the
Court takes as true all well-pleaded facts in the Counterclaim.
2
1
rendered the Lease unenforceable.
Countercl. ¶ 28.
2
3
II.
OPINION
4
A.
Judicial Notice
5
Beasley requests “the Court take judicial notice that the
6
business of being a professional basketball player does not
7
require, nor is it in any way aided or assisted by, the driving
8
of a luxury vehicle.”
9
notice of a fact that is not reasonably disputed if the fact
10
“can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
11
accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.”
12
201(b)(2).
13
requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary
14
information.”
15
Opp’n at 2.
A court may take judicial
Fed. R. Evid.
The court “must take judicial notice if a party
Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2).
The Court denies Beasley’s request because he did not
16
supply it with the necessary information.
17
one-sentence request in an opposition brief, without more, does
18
not suffice under federal evidentiary rules.
19
20
21
B.
Merely including a
Discussion
1.
Vehicle Leasing Act
California’s VLA regulates the leasing of automobiles.
See
22
Cal. Civ. Code § 2985.7 et seq.
See also LaChapelle v. Toyota
23
Motor Credit Corp., 102 Cal. App. 4th 977, 982 (2002).
24
applies to a “lease contract,” defined as “any contract for or
25
in contemplation of the lease or bailment for the use of a motor
26
vehicle . . . primarily for personal, family or household
27
purposes . . . .”
28
contract, however, “does not include a lease for . . . business
Cal. Civ. Code § 2985.7(d).
3
The VLA
A lease
1
or commercial purposes . . . .”
2
2.
3
Id.
Analysis
Beasley argues Momentum willfully violated the VLA by not
4
complying with the statute’s disclosure requirements.
Countercl.
5
¶¶ 21-28.
6
2985.8(c)(1) by not disclosing in the Lease that Beasley was
7
responsible for the difference between the Rolls-Royce’s residual
8
value and realized value once the Lease expired.
9
Beasley also claims Momentum violated that same provision by not
Specifically, Beasley states Momentum violated section
Id. ¶ 21.
10
accurately stating in the Lease the amount due before Beasley
11
received the car.
12
Momentum violated section 2985.8(a) by not disclosing all lease
13
terms in a single document.
14
Id. ¶ 25.
And, finally, Beasley alleges
Id. ¶ 22.
Here, dismissal turns on whether the Lease constitutes a
15
“lease contract” under the VLA.
16
because the parties executed the Lease for business and
17
commercial purposes and, so, the VLA does not apply.
18
3-5.
19
personal purposes, rendering the VLA applicable.
20
7.
21
Momentum argues it does not
See Mot. at
Beasley disagrees, maintaining that he signed the Lease for
The Court agrees with Momentum.
See Opp’n at 5-
The law makes clear the VLA
22
does not apply to business or commercial contracts.
23
Civ. Code § 2985.7(d) (“Lease contract does not include a lease
24
for . . . business or commercial purposes . . . .”).
25
Lease plainly states that the Commercial Code governes the
26
contract and that this was not a consumer transaction.
27
¶ 27 (citing Division 10 of the California Commercial Code).
28
the following language appeared right above Beasley’s signature
4
See Cal.
Here, the
Exh. A
And
1
line:
2
solely for commercial or business purposes.”
3
Lastly, Beasley certified “[he] intend[ed] that more than 50% of
4
the use of the [Rolls-Royce]” would relate to his “trade or
5
business . . . .”
6
“[Beasley] warrants that [he] will use the Equipment
Exh. A at 3.
Exh. D.
Beasley claims he “did not understand the complex lease
7
documentation . . . .”
Opp’n at 2.
This explanation does not
8
suffice.
9
information contradicting the allegations supporting his
The exhibits attached to Beasley’s counterclaim contain
10
counterclaim:
11
yet he signed papers clearly indicating the Lease served business
12
and commercial purposes.
13
accept as true the conclusory allegation.
14
State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing
15
Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir.
16
1998) (“[W]e are not required to accept as true conclusory
17
allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in
18
the complaint.”).
19
himself out of a claim by including unnecessary details contrary
20
to his claims.”
21
omitted).
22
his counterclaim show he agreed to lease the Rolls-Royce solely
23
for business and commercial purposes—purposes falling outside the
24
VLA’s scope.
25
allegation, the Court dismisses Beasley’s counterclaim.
26
Beasley says he did not understand the documents,
In these situations, a court need not
See Sprewell v. Golden
In other words, an individual can “plead
Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988 (internal citation
Beasley has done just that.
The exhibits attached to
Because these exhibits trump Beasley’s conclusory
See id.
A court may dismiss with prejudice “only if it appears
27
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
28
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
5
Navarro
1
v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and
2
internal quotation marks omitted).
3
there is no set of facts to support Beasley’s VLA claim and
4
therefore will give him one more opportunity to plead this
5
counterclaim.
6
without prejudice. 2
The Court is not convinced
Accordingly, Beasley’s counterclaim is dismissed
7
8
III.
ORDER
9
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT
10
PREJUDICE Momentum’s Motion to Dismiss Beasley’s counterclaim.
11
If Beasley wants to file a first amended counterclaim, he shall
12
file it within twenty days from the date of this Order.
13
Momentum’s responsive pleadings are due within twenty days
14
thereafter.
15
case will proceed on Momentum’s breach of contract claim.
16
17
If Beasley elects not to amend his counterclaim, the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 17, 2017
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
Having granted dismissal, the Court need not address whether it
may consider Momentum’s declarations.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?