BKC Entertainment LLC vs. K1 Speed Franchising, Inc.

“A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).) “A plaintiff can obtain summary adjudication of a cause of action only by proving ‘each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action.’ ” (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 241.) Thus, if damages are an element of a cause of action, “a plaintiff cannot obtain judgment on [that] cause of action in an amount of damages to be determined later.” (Ibid.)

Section 437c was amended in 1990 to limit summary adjudication motions to a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for punitive damages, or an issue of duty, and “[t]he clear purpose of the amendment was to ‘ “stop the practice of adjudication of facts or adjudication of issues that do not completely dispose of a cause of action for a defense.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 242.) “A determination of liability alone does not completely dispose of the cause of action.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated sections 31110 and 31201 of the CFIL. Section 31300(a) provides for a private right of action against any person who violates section 31110. Specifically, it provides, in relevant part, that any person Page 34 of 36

who violates section 31110 “shall be liable to the franchisee or subfranchisor, who may sue for damages caused thereby. . . .” Similarly, section 31301, which gives rise to a private right of action for violations of section 31201, provides that any person who violates section 31201 “shall be liable to any person (not knowing or having cause to believe that such statement was false or misleading) who, while relying upon such statement shall have purchased a franchise, for damages. . . .”

Sections 31300 and 31301 establish that damages are an element of Plaintiff’s causes of action for violations of sections 31110 and 31201. However, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence of its damages in support of its motion. Thus, Plaintiff has not met its burden to show it is entitled to summary adjudication of the first, second, or third causes of action.

Plaintiff argues that its motion turns on whether the statutory violations have been established and not whether all issues relating to remedy have been resolved. This ignores the fact that summary adjudication cannot be granted unless it completely disposes of a cause of action. To prevail on its causes of action under sections 31300 and 31301, Plaintiff must not only establish that Defendants violated the alleged provisions, but also that Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of those violations. Plaintiff also cites to Andalon v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 600 to argue that summary adjudication is proper on individual elements within a cause of action.