Hebrank v. Linmar IV, LLC et al
Filing
21
ORDER Granting 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Receiver's Motion is Granted. The hearing on the Receiver's Motion, currently set for August 1, 2014, is Vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/29/2014. (srm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS C. HEBRANK, Federal
Equity Receiver,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
LINMAR IV, LLC, a California
limited liability company,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF NO. 17)
INTRODUCTION
17
18
This is an action brought by court-appointed receiver Thomas C. Hebrank
19
(“Receiver”) on behalf of First Financial Planning Corporation d/b/a Western Financial
20
Planning Corporation (“Western”). (ECF No. 1.) The Receiver brings this action
21
against LinMar IV, LLC (“LinMar IV”) to enforce three promissory notes executed by
22
LinMar IV in favor of Western.
23
Presently before the Court is the Receiver’s Motion for Partial Summary
24
Judgment, in which the Receiver asks that summary judgment be entered in his favor
25
on his cause of action for breach of contract. (ECF No. 17, “Motion.”) LinMar IV has
26
filed an opposition to the Receiver’s Motion, (ECF No. 19), and the Receiver has filed
27
a reply, (ECF No. 20). Having considered the parties’ submissions and the applicable
28
law, and for the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT the Receiver’s Motion.
3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
BACKGROUND
1
2
The Court appointed the Receiver as permanent receiver over Western in the
3
main action out of which this action arises: SEC v. Schooler et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-
4
2164-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal.) (“SEC Action”). In the SEC Action, the Court authorized
5
the Receiver to pursue enforcement of three promissory notes executed by LinMar IV
6
in favor of Western in 2007 and 2008.
7
The five notes evidence loans by Western to LinMar IV in the total amount of
8
$220,000, which amount Western transferred to LinMar IV between June 2007 and
9
June 2010. The notes—executed on June 20, 2007; May 29, 2008; and December 24,
10
2008—provide maturity dates of September 20, 2007; May 29, 2009; and December
11
24, 2009, respectively. The June 2007 note provides an initial interest rate of 9.5% per
12
year, and the May 2008 and December 2008 notes provide an initial interest rate of
13
7.5% per year. In the event of a default, the notes allow Western to declare the entire
14
principal balance of each loan, plus all accrued interest, immediately due. The notes
15
further allow Western, upon default, the option of increasing the interest rate for each
16
note to 10% per year and adding any accrued interest to the principal balances.
17
It is undisputed that (1): LinMar IV borrowed $220,000 from Western per the
18
notes; (2) LinMar IV breached the notes by failing to repay any portion of the loans;
19
(3) Western has not interfered with LinMar IV’s ability to repay the loans; (4) Western
20
has performed all its obligations under the notes; and (5) the loans are due and payable.
21
With interest as of May 1, 2014, LinMar IV currently owes Western
22
$343,119.84.1
LEGAL STANDARD
23
24
Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party demonstrates the
25
absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of
26
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact
27
1
28
The initial interest rate was applied for the period between loan origination and April 2013
(i.e., 30 days after the Receiver’s February 2013 demand for full payment), and the 10% interest rate
has been applied for the period between April 2013 and May 1, 2014.
2
3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
1
is material when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of
2
the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Freeman v.
3
Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997). A dispute about a material fact is genuine
4
if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
5
party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
6
A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden of
7
establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at
8
323. If the moving party fails to discharge this initial burden, summary judgment must
9
be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See
10
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970). If the moving party meets
11
the initial burden, the nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment merely by
12
demonstrating “that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
13
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); see
14
also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252 (“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in
15
support of the nonmoving party’s position is not sufficient.”). Rather, the nonmoving
16
party must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions,
17
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that
18
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
19
56(e)) (internal quotations omitted).
20
Generally, “[a] matter admitted . . . is conclusively established unless the court,
21
on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
22
Once facts are admitted, district courts may “properly rel[y] on them as a basis for entry
23
of summary judgment.” Layton v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinests & Aerospace Workers,
24
285 Fed. Appx. 340, 341 (9th Cir. 2008).
25
26
DISCUSSION
The Receiver moves for summary judgment on his cause of action for breach of
27
28
3
3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
1
contract.2 The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the existence
2
of an enforceable contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
3
nonperformance under the contract, (3) the defendant’s material breach of the contract,
4
and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. Reichert v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 68 Cal. 2d
5
822, 830 (1968); Acoustics, Inc. v. Trepte Constr. Co., 14 Cal. App. 3d 887, 913
6
(1971).
7
LinMar IV asserts “it is undisputed that [LinMar IV] and Western had a formal
8
loan agreement whereby Western loaned money at interest to [LinMar IV] for a specific
9
period of time, that Western performed all of its obligations, and that [LinMar IV] has
10
not repaid the loan in full.” (ECF No. 19 at 5-6.) LinMar IV thus concedes there is no
11
dispute of material fact with regard to the first three elements of the Receiver’s breach-
12
of-contract claim. LinMar IV argues, however, there is a dispute of material fact with
13
regard to the fourth element of damages. LinMar IV further argues that disputes of
14
material fact exist with regard to its defense of impossibility. The Court addresses
15
these arguments in turn.
16
1.
Damages
17
LinMar IV argues the Receiver has not met his summary-judgment burden on
18
the issue of damages because (1) attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing the
19
repayment terms of the notes are not “damages” under California law, and (2) the
20
Receiver “has presented no evidence that Western has been damaged by the
21
nonpayment of the loans” because “Schooler’s intention, as owner and president of
22
both Western and [LinMar IV], was that even though the loans stated a time for
23
repayment, Western would not demand repayment at the specified time but would
24
allow [LinMar IV] to pay what it could, when it could, depending on [its] financial
25
situation.” (ECF No. 19 at 3-4.) In support of its second point, LinMar IV submits the
26
declaration of its principal, Louis V. Schooler (“Schooler”), which provides:
27
28
2
The Receiver’s remaining causes of action for money had and received, unjust enrichment,
and disgorgement are unaffected by the instant Motion. (See ECF No. 1.)
4
3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
Although the loans and promissory notes do specify a term for the
repayment of the loan, it was my intention, both at the time that the loans
2
were made and at the time the terms for repayment ended, that LinMar IV
would repay the loans on a “what you can, when you can” basis. In other
3
words, LinMar IV would make payments as its financial position
permitted, depending on money received for management services.
4 (ECF No. 19-2 at 2.)
1
5
Regardless of whether attorney fees and costs are ordinarily considered damages
6
in a breach-of-contract action, the Court concludes the Receiver has satisfied his
7
summary-judgment burden with respect to damages.
8
First, Schooler’s statement that he intended, as owner and president of both
9
Western and LinMar IV, to allow LinMar IV to repay Western “what it could, when it
10
could” is contradicted by LinMar IV’s prior admission that the note is due and payable.
11
(See ECF No. 17-4 at 53 [admitting the loan has matured]; ECF No. 17-4 at 8
12
[“matured” means “the final payment date of a loan has expired, at which point the
13
principal (and all accrued interest) on the loan is due to be paid”].) When something
14
is “due” in the context of payment, it is “[i]mmediately enforceable.” Black’s Law
15
Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). LinMar IV may not, therefore, contradict its prior admission
16
without leave of court to amend or withdraw its admission. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
17
Second, while LinMar IV contends its principal (Schooler) had a subjective
18
intent that varies from the notes’ payment terms, LinMar IV does not point to any
19
ambiguity in the notes’ language. Nor has the Court found any such ambiguity. The
20
notes plainly state: “Borrower will pay this loan in full at the end of twelve (12) months
21
[or three (3) months for the June 2007 loan]. Repayment will include principal and
22
interest times the number of months the loan will have been outstanding at the time of
23
repayment.” (ECF No. 17-3 at 8, 12, 16.) As such, LinMar IV may not offer extrinsic
24
evidence of subjective intent (in the form of Schooler’s declaration) that expressly
25
contradicts the notes’ language. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Oto, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1020,
26
1027 (2013) (“If the terms are unambiguous, there is ordinarily no occasion for
27
additional evidence of the parties’ subjective intent.”); Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners
28
Mile Gateway, LLC, 185 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1061 (2010) (“[U]nless the language is
5
3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
1
‘reasonably susceptible’ to the proposed meaning, extrinsic evidence cannot even be
2
considered to explain or otherwise shed light upon the parties’ intent.”).
3
Third, LinMar IV has offered no evidence of fraud, mistake, or any other
4
vitiating factor that would cause the Court to overlook LinMar IV’s objective
5
manifestation of assent (i.e., at least one principal’s signature on behalf of LinMar IV)
6
to the terms of the notes. See Rodriguez, 212 Cal. App. 4th at 1028.
7
Finally, the Receiver has offered undisputed evidence that Western has been
8
damaged as a matter of law by LinMar IV’s failure to repay the loan, in that LinMar IV
9
admits that it has not paid the loan even though the loan is due. See Cal. Civ. Code §
10
3300 (“For the breach of a[] . . . contract, the measure of damages . . . is the amount
11
which compensates the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused
12
thereby[.]”); Id. § 3302 (“The detriment caused by the breach of an obligation to pay
13
money only, is deemed to be the amount due by the terms of the obligation, with
14
interest thereon.”); In re Hein, 60 B.R. 769, 782 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1986) (“Under
15
California Civil Code § 3302, the payee under an obligation to pay money only . . . is
16
permitted to recover the amount due by the terms of the obligation with interest
17
thereon.”).
18
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes summary judgment should be
19
entered in the Receiver’s favor on his cause of action against LinMar IV for breach of
20
the June 2007, May 2008, and December 2008 notes.
21
2.
Impossibility
22
Impossibility is a defense to contract enforcement. See Mineral Park Land Co.
23
v. Howard, 172 Cal. 289, 459-60 (1916). “The impossibility which will excuse the
24
performance of a contract must consist in the nature of the thing to be done and not in
25
the inability of the obligor to do it.” Caron v. Andrew, 133 Cal. App. 2d 402, 407
26
(1955). Strict impossibility, however, is not required to excuse performance; rather,
27
performance may also be excused under circumstances showing “impracticability
28
because of extreme and unreasonable difficulty, expense, injury, or loss involved.”
6
3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
1
Oosten v. Hay Haulers Dairy Emp. & Helpers Union, 45 Cal. 2d 784, 794 (1955). Still,
2
for performance to be excused, it must be objectively–not subjectively–impossible or
3
impracticable. See Hensler v. Los Angeles, 124 Cal. App. 2d 71, 83 (1964). Thus, a
4
party may not generally rely on an impossibility defense to justify its failure to make
5
payments, as making payments is not objectively impossible or impracticable. See
6
Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721,
7
728 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261 cmt. d (1981)).
8
Here, LinMar IV has offered no evidence demonstrating that its purported
9
inability to repay the loans is objectively impossible or impracticable. Instead, LinMar
10
IV merely asserts–from its subjective perspective–that repaying the loans “can only be
11
done at an excessive and unreasonable cost” to itself. LinMar IV has therefore failed
12
to demonstrate that a dispute of material fact exists with regard to its impossibility
13
defense.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
14
15
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1.
The Receiver’s Motion, (ECF No. 17), is GRANTED; and
17
2.
The hearing on the Receiver’s Motion, currently set for August 1, 2014,
18
19
20
21
is VACATED.
DATED: July 29, 2014
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
3:13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA
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?