In the Matter of the Conservatorship of James Michael Feeney

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, subd. (p); see also Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar) [“a plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto”].)

Through the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its initial burden of producing facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing as to each element of the claim. (See Declaration of Plaintiff, ¶¶ 4-11, Exhs. A-C.)4 Defendant failed to file anything in opposition to the motion, and therefore fails to show a triable question of material fact requiring trial in the matter.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of damages in the amount prayed for through the Complaint ($59,391.29). The Court further finds that items listed on Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, filed May 7, 2026, appear proper on their face ($1,025.46). (See Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267 [held: if the items listed in the memorandum of costs appear proper on their face, then the verified statement is prima facie evidence of their propriety].)

Based on the foregoing, the Court will sign the Proposed Judgment.

PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Conservatorship of James Michael Feeney 25PR000173

[1] FIRST ACCOUNT AND REPORT OF CONSERVATORS OF PERSON AND ESTATE

[2] REVIEW HEARING

TENTATIVE RULING: Both matters are CONTINUED to September 24, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to allow the Conservators to file: (1) Notice of Conservatee’s Rights (Judicial Council form GC-341) mailed to relatives of the Conservatee within the second degree. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.

4 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Separate Statement on file is missing page 2, which appears to contain Plaintiff’s undisputed material facts, nos. 1-4. Because the record is brief, and because Plaintiff made the dispositive evidence obvious to the Court and opposing party through its Memorandum and Declaration, the Court elects to exercise its discretion to accept the less than perfect separate statement and consider the evidence outside of the filed-version of the Separate Statement. (See San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316 [noting, in dicta, court’s discretion to consider evidence not referenced in moving party’s separate statement where the facts are relatively simple and the evidence was clearly called to the attention of court and counsel].)

21