Quick Bridge Funding, LLC vs. Overstreet Enterprises, LLC

Here, the undisputed facts show Plaintiff cannot establish any extreme and outrageous conduct by Moving Defendants (see Defs.’ Sep. St. Nos. 26-31 [and evidence cited therein]) or resulting severe and extreme emotional distress (see Defs.’ Sep. St. No. 53 [and evidence cited therein]).

Moving Defendants to give notice.

11 Quick Bridge TENTATIVE RULING: Funding, LLC vs. Overstreet For the reasons set forth below, the unopposed motion for summary Enterprises, judgment by Plaintiff Quick Bridge Funding, LLC against Defendants LLC Overstreet Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Mid-South Hobbies (“Seller”) and Aubrey Overstreet (“Guarantor”), on the first through second causes of action of Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.

A. Legal Standard for Motion for Summary Judgment

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(c), a summary judgment motion shall be granted if all the papers submitted show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at 851.) A plaintiff moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing that each element of the cause of action in question has been “proved,” and hence that there is no defense thereto. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)

“Once the plaintiff ... has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant ... to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant ... may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

In determining whether the parties have met their respective burdens, “the court must ‘consider all of the evidence’ and ‘all’ of the ‘inferences’ reasonably drawn therefrom [citation], and must view such evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at

p. 843.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Id. at p. 850, fn. omitted.) Thus, a party “ ‘cannot avoid summary judgment by asserting facts based on mere speculation and conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Dollinger DeAnza Associates v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1144-1145.)

B. The First and Second Causes of Action

In the first and second causes of action, Plaintiff alleges the breaches of the following agreements by Defendants Overstreet Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Mid-South Hobbies (“Seller”) and Aubrey Overstreet (“Guarantor”):

• First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract: Plaintiff and Seller entered into a written agreement titled Future Receivables Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated April 4, 2025, in which Seller agreed to sell, assign, and transfer a finite amount of Seller’s future receivables in the amount of $64,499.76 in exchange for a purchase price of $50,000 by Plaintiff (the “Agreement”). [Mvg. Decl. of Sandra Otero, ¶ 4 & Ex. 1]. Plaintiff contends that the Seller breached this agreement, with $44,653.68 in principal due and owing. [Id., ¶ 6].

• Second Cause of Action: Breach of Guaranty: Plaintiff and the Guarantor entered into a signed guaranty on April 4, 2025, in which the Guarantor guaranteed the Seller’s performance under the Agreement (the “Guaranty”). [Mvg. Decl. of Sandra Otero, ¶ 5 & Ex. 1 at Attachment A].

“[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.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) The court finds that Plaintiff has met its initial prima facie burden of establishing the elements for breach of contract for each of the agreements at issue. Plaintiff offers the following evidence in its moving papers:

• Existence of a contract: Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the Agreement and Guaranty. [See SUMF ## 1-4 & Otero Decl., ¶¶ 4-5 & Ex. 1].

• Plaintiff’s performance: Plaintiff performed by depositing the money required by the Agreement into the Seller’s bank account. [See SUMF ## 10, 11; Mvg. Otero Decl., ¶ 10.]

• Defendants’ breach: On July 31, 2025, Seller and Guarantor defaulted by instructing its bank to stop payments to Plaintiff under the Agreement. [SUMF # 5, Mvg. Otero Decl., ¶¶6-9, Exs. 2 & 3]. Plaintiff declared a breach and demanded payment from the Seller and Guarantor. [SUMF # 6, Id.] Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Seller and Guarantor failed to pay the amounts due under Agreement and as guaranteed under Guaranty. [SUMF ##7-8, Id.]

• Damages: The outstanding principal amount due on the Agreement at the time of the breach was $44,653.68 [SUMF # 6, Mvg. Otero Decl., ¶¶6-9, Exs. 2-3.]

The court finds that by this evidence, Plaintiff has met its prima facie burden of establishing each element of a breach of contract claim against the Seller and Guarantor under the Agreement and Guaranty.

The burden, therefore, shifts to Defendants to offer sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Defendants have failed to file an opposition with any contradicting evidence to dispute Plaintiff’s facts. Nor do Defendants object to the admissibility of any of Plaintiff’s evidence or offer any evidence of a viable defense for their alleged breaches.

As such, the court finds that the undisputed facts establish each element of the first and second causes of action of the complaint. The court, therefore, GRANTS summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.

Plaintiff to give notice.

12 Mills v. Nexgen Air TENTATIVE RULING: Conditioning and Heating, LLC Motion to Stay or Compel Arbitration

Defendants Nexgen Air Conditioning and Heating, LLC, and Marcus Van Valen move to stay this action pending resolution of the parties’ arbitration or, in the alternative, move to compel Plaintiffs Sheryl Mills and Stephen Mills to arbitrate the claims asserted in their Complaint. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.