Sierra Lakes Professional Park, LLC v. Franklin Dixon; Bednahrin Dixon

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

SIERRA LAKES PROFESSIONAL PARK, LLC, Case No.: CIVSB2427600 Plaintiff, [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF SIERRA LAKES FRANKLIN DIXON; BEDNAHRIN DIXON, PROFESSIONAL PARK, LLC Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff Sierra Lakes Professional Park, LLC, filed a Complaint

for Breach of Lease Guaranty against Defendants Franklin Dixon and Bednahrin Dixon. Plaintiff

alleges one cause of action for breach of guaranty. The Complaint arises out of a commercial

lease that Defendants guaranteed. On June 17, 2025, Defendants answered.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks a

judgment against Defendants on the guaranty in the total amount of $132,587.64, which is what

it asserts is owed under the lease, including interest and other costs. Defendants have not

opposed. After issuing a tentative ruling and holding a hearing on the motion, the Court now

issues its final ruling.

II. WHY SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED With respect to breach of a guaranty, a surety or guarantor is one who promises to answer

for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another. (Central Building, LLC v. Cooper (2005) 127

Cal.App.4th 1053, 1058, citing Civ. Code, § 2787.) The guarantor’s obligation rests on the

contract of guaranty. (Neiderer v. Ferreira (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1505.) A contract of

guaranty provides a separate and independent obligation on the guarantor from that which binds

the principal debtor. (Talbott v. Hustwit (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 148, 151.) To establish liability

for breach of a written guaranty, the elements for a breach of contract must be demonstrated.

Here, Plaintiff presents the following facts. It entered into a lease on October 14, 2009

with an initial tenant for the premises at issue. The original lease was amended several times.

Under an Assignment and Assumption of Lease, effective June 1, 2016, FND Enterprises

(Tenant) assumed all obligations of the tenant under the original lease, as amended, and entered

into possession. (UFs 1-3.)

In conjunction with the Assignment, Defendants entered into a written Guaranty of Lease

under which they guaranteed each and all of Tenant’s covenants and obligations under the Lease.

Defendants are (or were) officers of Tenant FND Enterprises. Under Section 1 of the Guaranty,

Defendants “unconditionally and irrevocably” guaranteed: “(i) the prompt payment by Tenant of

all Minimum Annual Rent, Additional Rental, and all other sums payable by Tenant under the

Lease, (ii) the faithful and prompt performance by Tenant of each and every term, condition, and

covenant of the Lease to be kept and performed by Tenant....” Under Section 2 of the Guaranty,

Defendants promised and agreed that their guaranty of obligations under Section 1 were

“separate, independent of, and in addition to the obligations and undertakings of Tenant pursuant

to the Lease” and that “a separate action or actions may be brought and prosecuted against

[Defendants] whether or not [an] action is brought against Tenant ... and independent of any

action at law or in equity brought against Tenant.” (UFs 4-7.)

Plaintiff recounts the Tenant’s obligations under the Lease that support the amounts

Plaintiff claims is owed, including an obligation to pay minimum annual rent, additional rent,

redeliver the property in good order and state of repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and in a

neat and clean condition, free of debris. (UFs 8-11.) The Lease was set to expire on December

31, 2024, but the Tenant defaulted on its obligations under the Lease by failing to pay minimum

and additional rent due on January 1, 2024. After the Tenant defaulted, Plaintiff sent a three-day

notice to pay rent or quit and ultimately brought an unlawful detainer action in San Bernardino

County Superior Court, Case No. LLTVA2401255. On April 12, 2024, the Court entered a

judgment for possession in the UD action and declared the lease canceled and forfeited. After

entry of Judgment, Plaintiff recovered possession and made efforts to re-lease to another tenant

through completion of the lease on December 31, 2024, but was unable to locate a replacement

tenant before the lease expired. (UFs 12-17.)

The amount of unpaid rent due under the lease from January 1, 2024 to December 31,

2024 is $104,108.28. After applying the security deposit of $5,240, $98,868.28 in rent is owed.

In addition, under Section 19.3 of the Lease and Civil Code section 1951.2, Plaintiff is entitled to

interest “at the maximum lawful rate” of 10 percent on the unpaid rent. As calculated, this

amounts to daily interest of $27.09 per day. Plaintiff calculates that from January 1, 2025 to

August 25, 2026 is 601 days; therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to at least $16,281.09 in interest on

the unpaid rent, for a total of $115,149.37 for outstanding rent and interest. (UFs 18-22.)

Plaintiff also incurred multiple expenses in restoring the premises and performing

maintenance items related to the storefront door, locks, signage, and grease trap, which were

Tenant’s responsibilities under the Lease. For this, Plaintiff seeks $13,150.42 in restoration costs.

Plaintiff also spent $4,287.85 in attorneys’ fees and costs related to removing the Tenant and

securing the premises. (UFs 23-24.)

As a result, the combined total of rent, interest, restoration costs, and additional costs

totals $132,587.64, which neither Tenant nor Defendants have paid despite Plaintiff’s demand.

(UF 25.)

Plaintiff submits evidence in support of UFs 1-25 on the Declaration of Jessica

Hernandez, Manager-Commercial Property Administrator for Lewis Management Corp., the

property agent responsible for leasing matters on the property. Hernandez states she is the

custodian of Plaintiff’s business records, familiar with, and reviewed the documents,

correspondence, lease agreements, and other records related to the premises. Hernandez

establishes the foundation for admission of business records and sufficient foundation to testify

to amounts owed on the Lease and Guaranty at issue. (Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Hernandez’s

testimony supports statements related to the Lease, Assignment, Guaranty, Tenant’s default, UD

action and judgment, and amounts owed under the Lease and Guaranty. (Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 3-

20 and Exhs. A-I.)

In UFs 1-25, Plaintiff meets its initial burden by providing competent evidence that there

was a Lease Guaranty between Plaintiff and Defendants under which Defendants guaranteed the

prompt payment by Tenant of rent, additional rent, and all other sums payable by Tenant under

the Lease, the Tenant’s default, Defendants’ failure to perform under the Lease Guaranty, and

Plaintiff’s damages.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Sierra Lakes Professional Park’s motion for summary judgment against

Defendants Franklin Dixon and Bednahrin Dixon, which demonstrates damages in the total

amount of $132,587.64, is GRANTED. (UFs 1-25 and evidence cited in support, including

Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 1-20 and Exhs. A-I.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court