Motion for Summary Judgment
2024CUBC031429: LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. vs FRAN B GRODZIENSKI 06/12/2026 in Department 40 Motion for Summary Judgment
The following is a statement of the courts tentative ruling. The court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after considering the parties oral arguments. The tentative ruling will have no legal effect unless adopted by the court.
No notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative decision, you may notify the court by email to courtroom40@ventura.courts.ca.gov. Please include the hearing date, the case name and case number in the message. You must include all counsel and self-represented parties on your message. The court will not respond to your email. Do not use this email address for any other purpose without the courts express permission. Do not include the court in any email communications between counsel. Do not call in lieu of sending an email, nor should you call to see if your email has been received. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence.
PLEASE NOTE: The court will not approve any request to appear by Court Call made after 4:00 p.m. on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing.
Defendant, Fran B. Grodzienski (Defendant), moves for summary judgment on the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Lighthouse Properties Real Estate Services, Inc. dba Lotus Estate Properties (Plaintiff), on a single cause of action for breach of contract. The motion is opposed by Plaintiff. Factual Findings: For the purposes of this motion only, the Court finds the following undisputed material facts submitted by Defendant (UMFs) are undisputed and ESTABLISHED by the cited evidence Nos: 1-5, 8, 9, 11. For the purposes of this motion only, the Court finds the following UMFs are disputed and NOT ESTABLISHED by the cited evidence Nos: 6, 7, 10, 12-16.
Discussion
The parties agree that Plaintiff did not submit the listing of the subject property to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). (UMF no. 8.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff may not recover for breach of contract because did not perform under the contract as the Property was not listed on
2024CUBC031429: LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. vs FRAN B GRODZIENSKI
the MLS. In response, Plaintiff contends that disputed issues of fact exist as to whether Plaintiffs failure to list the property was justified. Plaintiff asserts in UMF no. 6 that the Residential Listing Agreement (RLA) provides that MLS rules require that residential real estate listings be within 1 business day of any marketing. (Citing to Exhibit 1.) However, UMF no. 6 does not accurately quote the RLA, which states, MLS rules require . . . that residential real property with one to four units and vacant lot listings be submitted to the MLS within 1 business day of any public marketing. Whether the property was marketed publicly is a disputed point.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant offers evidence, through her declaration, that Plaintiff did not market the subject property and, as such, did not fulfill its obligations under the contract (see UMF nos. 7, 13). Plaintiff provides contrary evidence to show that Plaintiff did market the Property. Plaintiff submits the declaration of Plaintiffs owner, Debbie Sutz, which states that she devoted substantial time and effort assisting with the preparation of the Property for sale, including coordinating and overseeing renovations, assisting with design and presentation decisions, arranging staging and cleaning, coordinating vendors and contractors, and helping move the project toward completion and that she shared the Property information with all the Lotus agents to help generate interest, identify prospective buyers, and assist with marketing efforts and that she continued marketing efforts [during the renovation period] by discussing the Property with local agents, prospective buyers, and other individuals and generating interest in anticipation of the official launch. (Sutz.
Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 15.) Plaintiff also submits the declaration of Ms. Sutzs husband, Ron Levy. He states that Ms. Sutz was engaged in extensive marketing endeavors, including many telephone calls and in-person discussions between Debbie and several local real estate agents, potential buyers, and other individuals during which Debbie discussed and described the Property, including approximate pricing and features of the unit, and otherwise generating interest in the Property. (Levy Decl ¶ 10.) Plaintiff also submits the declaration of Donna Erkman, an employee of Ms.
Lutzs at Lotus Estates, stating that it appeared to her that Ms. Lutz was actively marketing and generating interest in the Calle de Las Ovejas property prior to it being formally launched on the MLS. (Erckman Decl. ¶ 11.) Defendant argues that the evidence provided by Plaintiff does not demonstrate public marketing as defined by the RLA. However, the evidence submitted by Plaintiff is proof that Ms. Sutz, at a minimum, discussed the property with prospective buyers. Moreover, public marketing as defined by the RLA is not limited to certain actions, implying a broad definition.
An issue of fact exists as to whether Plaintiffs activities constituted public marketing. Plaintiff further argues that its performance was excused by Defendants pre-launch conditions that prevented or delayed listing the property on the MLS or presenting it to buyers. Ms. Lutzs declaration states that Defendant repeatedly instructed me that the Property should not be
2024CUBC031429: LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. vs FRAN B GRODZIENSKI
formally launched until renovations and preparations were completed, professional photographs taken and approved by them, and the price finalized. (Sutz. Decl. ¶ 7.) Mr. Levys declaration states that he observed that renovations and repairs at the subject property were taking longer than Defendant had originally told Ms. Lutz, that he was present at meetings where Defendant instructed Ms. Lutz that the Property be fully completed, photographed, and properly presented before buyers were brought through the unit, and that Defendant told Ms.
Lutz that the property should not be put on the MLS or formally marketed until it was completely done. (Levy Decl ¶¶ 7, 9, 12.) Defendant asserts in UMF no. 10 that at or around April 15, 2024, the repairs had been completed (UMF no. 10) and provides evidence to support this fact through her declaration. Defendant argues, essentially, that since the repairs were completed there was no justification for not listing or marketing the property. However, the opposition evidence contradicts the moving evidence.
Plaintiffs evidence includes text messages from April 17, 2024, that state that the condo will be completed Sunday and Defendants response that Wood floors last on the list to do. (Plaintiffs Reply Exh. 3.) As such, it is not established that the repairs were completed as of April 15, 2024. Moreover, Plaintiff has presented evidence that the parties were not able to agree on a listing price and modifications to the listing agreement. (Sutz. ¶¶ 16-21.) Triable issues of material fact exist as to whether any failure by Plaintiff to perform under the contract was justified.
Defendant has failed to establish that there is no triable issue of material facts as to Plaintiffs cause of action or a defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
3