Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants to give notice.
13 Quick Bridge Motion for Summary Judgment Funding, LLC vs. Williams The court GRANTS Plaintiff QUICK BRIDGE FUNDING, LLC’s motion for summary judgement of Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant JUNDI WILLIAMS.
Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections: OVERRULED
The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for breach of guaranty against a single defendant, Jundi Williams.
“[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.)
Plaintiff proffers evidence supporting each of these elements. Specifically, Plaintiff proffers evidence of the following: (1) a business loan agreement that was personally guaranteed by defendant (Otero Decl., Exh. 1); (2) Plaintiff performed all of its conditions required under the agreement (Otero Decl. ¶ 9); (3) Defendant breached the agreement on or about 11/7/25 by failing to make required payments despite demand (Otero Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 2); and (4) there is an outstanding loan balance owed to Plaintiff in the amount of $79,687.50 (Otero Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 2).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to meet its burden on summary judgment because Sandra Otero did not declare that she was a party or witness or that she had any personal knowledge of the Loan Agreement or Guaranty.
The court finds the Otero Declaration to be sufficient. Notably, Otero declares under penalty of perjury that she is the Chief Operating Officer of Quick Bridge and is a custodian of records for Quick Bridge, who has full access
to the records and has been employed by Plaintiff since 2018. She further declares that the loan documents are prepared by the personnel of Quick Bridge in the ordinary course of its business of financing loan transactions, and that the records are made at or near the time of the acts, conditions, or events indicated in the records.
The court finds that Plaintiff met its burden on summary judgement.
Defendant’s opposition offers no contrary evidence sufficient to show a triable issue of material fact. For example, Defendant does not submit any declaration denying that Defendant entered into the guaranty or contesting the payment history.
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 proffers only the declaration of its limited scope representation attorney John Hamilton, who explains that he provided the defendant’s general denial and affirmative defenses. Defendant appears to be arguing that there is a triable issue of material fact related to the thirteenth affirmative defense concerning whether or not Plaintiff complied with Civil Code section 1633.5(b). Section 1633.5 discusses the requirement for parties to have “agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means.”
Importantly, a plaintiff moving for summary judgement is not initially required to disprove affirmative defenses. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853 [“summary judgment law in this state no longer requires a plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action.”].) Once a plaintiff moving for summary judgment meets its burden, “the burden shifts to the defendant ... to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1), emphasis supplied.)
Here, Defendant does not present any facts or evidence indicating that Defendant did not agree to conduct any transaction with Plaintiff by electronic means. Further, the evidence proffered show that Defendant did agree to conduct the transaction by electronic means. For example,
Section 26 of the Loan Agreement signed by Defendant states:
For purposes of the execution of this Agreement and documents, electronic signatures and fax signatures shall be treated in all respects as original signatures. An electronic signature may be used to execute this Agreement and any other related documents. For purposes of the execution of this Agreement and documents, Borrower’s electronic signature may be obtained through an automated transaction, computer program or other electronic process to show the electronic signature is attributable to Borrower and Borrower’s intent to sign such Agreements and documents.
Borrower agrees that an electronic signature obtained through any such automated transaction, computer program or other electronic process has the same legal and morale effect as if Borrower signed such Agreements and documents in ink and will be deemed valid, authentic, enforceable and binding and that such electronically signed documents shall be deemed originals.
(Otero Decl., Exh. 1, pg. 8 (at ¶ 26).)
In sum, Defendant has not shown a triable issue of material fact.
For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement is GRANTED.
The court VACATES the scheduled 5/10/27 court trial.
Plaintiff to give notice and submit a proposed judgment.
31