Lin v. Leal (2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Granted
Lin v. Leal, 2025 WL 3166009 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3166009 (Cal.Super.) (Trial Order)Superior Court of California,Civil Division,Northeast District, Alhambra Courthouse, Department X.Los Angeles CountyHsein Liang LIN, et al.,v.Amado LEAL, et al.No. 24AHCV00437.October 23, 2025.*1 8:30 AMJudicial Assistant: Maria Vegerano-NunezCourtroom Assistant: Leslie WongCSR: NoneERM: NoneDeputy Sheriff: NoneEditor's Note: This document contains discussion of unverified citations, likely generatedby AI tools used by a party or counsel. These citations are not attributable to the Court. Theunverified citations have been preserved as part of the official record, but links are unavailable.OrderSperos P. Maniates via LACC (X), for plaintiff(s).Glenn Ward Calsada via LACC (X), for defendant(s).Honorable Lauren A. R. Lofton, Judge.NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (7523)Matter is called for hearing.Counsel inform the Court that they have read and considered the Court's tentative ruling, posted on the Los Angeles SuperiorCourt website, prior to this hearing.The Court's tentative ruling is heard and argued.Upon the conclusion of oral argument the Court rules as follows:The Motion for Summary Judgment OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (7523) filed byEncarnacion Gutierrez on 06/09/2025 is Granted.**************************COURT ORDERS***************************
Lin v. Leal, 2025 WL 3166009 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTDefendant Encarnacion Gutierrez filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, againstPlaintiffs Hsien Liang Lin and Pi Chao Chen Lin.Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of lease, breach of guaranty, property damage, vandalism, negligence, emotional distress, andelder abuse, arising from a series of commercial lease agreements and related transactions involving the premises at 118 W.Main Street, Alhambra, California.Defendant Gutierrez seeks judgment as a matter of law on all causes of action, contending that there are no triable issues ofmaterial fact and that Plaintiffs cannot establish the essential elements of their claims. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing thatgenuine disputes exist regarding the enforceability of the guaranty, the effect of lease termination, notice requirements, leasemodifications, and the sufficiency of the tort allegations.RulingDefendant has met his initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiffs cannot establish essential elements of their claims and thatcomplete defenses exist. Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Theopposition relies on inadmissible evidence, unsupported assertions, and theories outside the pleadings. The record is devoid offacts which would create a triable issue on any of the claims asserted against Defendant Gutierrez.Defendant Encarnacion Gutierrez's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions in the Amount of $1,000.00In reviewing the legal authorities cited in Plaintiffs' opposing papers, Plaintiffs cite “Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Grigsby(1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 512, 517.” (Opp., p. 5.) This Mutual Benefit case does not exist. The opposition also cites to “SumitomoBank v. Iwasaki (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 1, 6” for the proposition that guarantor liability may persist for past obligations despitetermination. The citation is incorrect, with the correct citation being Sumitomo Bank of Cal. v. Iwasaki (1968) 70 Cal.2d 81.Moreover, the Sumitomo case cited by Plaintiffs does not appear to support the position proffered.Accordingly, on its own motion, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause hearing on why Plaintiffs' Counsel, Speros Maniates,should not be sanctioned in the amount of $1,000 for violating Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) by citing fake and/or improper cases. The OSC hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X.Legal Authority for Summary Judgment*2 “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadingsin order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. AtlanticRichfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “A party may move for summary judgement in an action or proceeding if it iscontended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473c subd.(a)(1).) “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as toany material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Id., at § 437c, subd. (c).)A defendant moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of showing that the plaintiff's causes of action have nomerit, and the defendant meets this burden by making a prima facie evidentiary showing that one or more elements of eachcause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense to each cause of action. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at
Lin v. Leal, 2025 WL 3166009 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3pp. 849-851; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) If the defendant meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiffto produce evidence of a triable issue of material fact concerning the challenged element or defense. (Aguilar, supra, at pp.849-851; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence wouldallow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with theapplicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar, supra, at p. 850.) Throughout the motion, however, the moving party bears an overallburden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matterof law. (Id., at p. 850 & fn. 11.)Plaintiffs' Separate Statement Is Procedurally DefectiveAs a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' separate statement does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section437c. “The opposition papers [to summary judgment] shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the materialfacts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those factsare undisputed.... Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to thesupporting evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).)“‘The separate statement serves two important functions in a summary judgment proceeding: It notifies the parties whichmaterial facts are at issue, and it provides a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to hone in on thetruly disputed facts.”’ (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 875 [internal citation omitted].)Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, forgranting the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).)Based on the failure to comply with section 437c, Plaintiffs' separate statement is stricken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b)[court may strike any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state].)Validity and Enforceability of the Guaranty AgreementsThe central dispute concerns whether Defendant Gutierrez is bound by an enforceable guaranty for the obligations under the2017 and 2019 lease agreements.Defendant Gutierrez contends that the 2017 Guaranty does not expressly obligate him to guarantee the tenant's (Los AmigosSBG, LLC) performance, but rather only covers debts and obligations of himself and co-signor Capra. (Motion, p. 4.) Thisposition is supported by the text of the 2017 Guaranty and Plaintiffs' own admissions in discovery. Defendant further assertsthat the 2019 Lease and its Addendum are unenforceable as a guaranty because they lack the Landlord's countersignature anddo not contain express terms of a guarantee by Gutierrez. (Motion, p. 9.)*3 In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the intent to guarantee the tenant's obligations can be inferred from the parties' conduct,negotiations, and oral assurances. (Opp., p. 5.) Plaintiffs cite Civil Code section 2837 and Cathay Bank v. Lee (1993) 14Cal.App.4th 1533, 1539 for the proposition that the scope of a guaranty may be implied from circumstances and conduct.Plaintiffs also reference declaration evidence of oral assurances by Gutierrez during lease negotiations.Defendant's reply points out that the Complaint pleads only written guaranties, and that oral assurances or implied terms outsidethe pleadings cannot create a triable issue for summary judgment purposes. (Reply, p. 3.) The reply further notes that the statuteof frauds, Civil Code section 1624(a)(2) requires a guaranty to be in writing, and that the 2017 Guaranty does not guarantee thetenant's obligations as it only references debts of Gutierrez and Capra. (Reply, p. 4.)Here, the record establishes that the 2017 Guaranty does not expressly bind Gutierrez to the tenant's obligations, and the 2019Lease Addendum lacks the operative guaranty terms. Plaintiffs' reliance on oral assurances and implied intent is not supported
Lin v. Leal, 2025 WL 3166009 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4by the pleadings, and their discovery responses do not provide factual support for the existence of an enforceable guaranty. Theevidence presented by Plaintiffs is insufficient to create a genuine dispute as to the existence of a binding guaranty.Lease Termination and CancellationDefendant asserts that Plaintiffs' actions in the Unlawful Detainer proceeding, specifically obtaining a Clerk's Judgment that“the rental agreement is canceled,” constitute a binding judicial admission that the lease was terminated, thereby extinguishingany obligations under the lease and any associated guaranty. Defendant relies on Civil Code section 1951.2 and the lease's owntermination provisions, which state that upon written notice of termination, the tenant's liability for future rent and chargesceases.Plaintiffs counter that the cancellation of the lease does not automatically terminate the guarantor's liability, citing MutualBenefit Life Ins. Co. v. Grigsby (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 512, 517, and arguing that a guaranty may survive lease terminationunless expressly conditioned otherwise. (Opp., p. 5.) The Court observes that neither the case name nor citation appears to exist.Plaintiffs further argue that the Lease Assignment (Article 5) contemplates ongoing liability for the assignor (Gutierrez) in theevent of assignee breach, and that the effect of cancellation on the guaranty is a disputed issue requiring trial. (Opp., pp. 5-6.)Defendant's reply emphasizes that a guaranty is accessory to the principal obligation and is extinguished when the principalobligation is terminated, citing Civil Code section 2809 and Bloom v. Bender (1957) 48 Cal.2d 793, 797. (Reply, p. 6.) Thereply also notes that Plaintiffs' own admissions and the lease documents confirm that the lease was canceled and that no furtherliability accrues. (Reply, p. 6.)Because the guaranty terms do not expressly bind Gutierrez to the tenant's obligations (as discussed above), the issue of whethertermination of the lease also terminated the guaranty is a moot point. Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to createa triable issue as to whether the guaranty survives the lease's cancellation.Notice Requirements*4 Defendant argues that the lease agreements and assignment require written notice of breach to be provided to the assignor(Gutierrez) as a condition precedent to enforcing any obligations, and that Plaintiffs admit they never provided such writtennotice. (Motion, p. 12.) Defendant further contends that oral notice is insufficient under the integrated contract and the parolevidence rule. (Reply, pp. 3-4.)Plaintiffs respond that Defendant Gutierrez had actual notice of the assignee's default through registered mail. Plaintiffs citeTaylor v. J.B. Hill Co. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 373, 375, for the proposition that adequacy and timing of notice are factual disputes.Defendant's reply maintains that the written notice provision is controlling, and that Plaintiffs' discovery responses anddeclarations do not establish that written notice was provided as required by the lease. The reply also notes that Plaintiffs'responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 were factually devoid, and similar denials of key requests for admission deem the RFAseffectively admitted. (Reply, p. 5.)The evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs did not provide the contractually required written notice of breach to Gutierrez, andtheir assertions of actual notice are not supported by admissible evidence or sufficient factual detail. No genuine dispute existsas to the failure to satisfy the notice condition precedent.Lease Modifications
Lin v. Leal, 2025 WL 3166009 (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5Defendant contends that material modifications to the 2019 Lease, including Addendum No. 2 and the Payment Plan Agreement,were made without Gutierrez's consent and materially altered the obligations, thereby exonerating him from liability underCivil Code section 2819. (Motion, p. 13; Reply, p. 7.) Defendant identifies five substantial changes: restructuring rent, taxes,insurance, increasing the deposit, repayment terms, and required repairs. (Motion, p. 7.)Plaintiffs argue that these modifications were minor adjustments intended to preserve the lease, not increase Defendant's risk.(Opp., p. 7.) Plaintiffs further assert that Gutierrez was notified of the changes and that the lack of consent does not automaticallydischarge a guarantor absent prejudice. (Opp., p. 7.)The record supports Defendant's position that the lease was materially modified without his consent, and Plaintiffs have notpresented evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to whether the modifications were minor or whether Gutierrez wasadequately notified.Alleged Tort ClaimsDefendant asserts that the Complaint fails to plead specific facts or legal theories supporting the tort claims (property damage,vandalism, negligence, emotional distress, elder abuse) against Gutierrez, and that these claims are derivative of the contractand guaranty obligations, which are unenforceable. (Motion, pp. 13-14.) The reply further notes that the Complaint does notspecifically allege tort claims against Gutierrez. (Reply, p. 7.)Plaintiffs respond that the Complaint alleges Gutierrez's negligent assignment of the lease to an unreliable tenant, leading toproperty damage and emotional distress, and that declaration evidence of the assignee's destructive conduct is sufficient tostate claims under Civil Code section 1714 and CACI No. 400. Plaintiffs also assert that the elder abuse claim is supported byevidence of Plaintiffs' age and the distress caused by Gutierrez's inaction.The Court finds the Complaint does not contain specific factual allegations against Gutierrez for the tort claims, and Plaintiffs'opposition does not cure this deficiency. No genuine dispute exists as to the sufficiency of the tort claims against Gutierrez.Conclusion*5 Defendant Encarnacion Gutierrez has met his burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues of material fact as toall causes of action alleged by Plaintiffs. Defendant Encarnacion Gutierrez's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTEDin its entirety.*****END OF COURT ORDERS RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT****Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Plaintiff's Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) is scheduled for12/09/2025 at 08:30 AM in Department X at Alhambra Courthouse.Moving party to give notice.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access