Kajioka v. Reynoso CA5

Filed 6/27/13 Kajioka v. Reynoso CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

KEN KAJIOKA, F064144 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 634093) v.

ANALUISA REYNOSO, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Roger M. Beauchesne, Judge. Law Offices of Michael L. Abbott and Michael L. Abbott for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of David M. Jamieson and David M. Jamieson for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Poochigian, J.

This is an appeal from summary judgment entered in favor of respondent and defendant Analuisa Reynoso and against appellant and plaintiff Ken Kajioka. We affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY It is alleged in the operative first amended complaint that plaintiff in 2008 entered into two agreements to loan money to Bouthavy Tyler Manivong and his business, Pacific A.R.C. Manivong attempted to repay the loans with checks drawn on an account he held jointly with defendant, his wife. The first check, for $120,000, was dishonored by defendant’s credit union for insufficient funds. The second check, for $14,000, was rejected by the credit union pursuant to a stop payment order. Manivong was subsequently arrested on “charges relating to financial fraud.” The facts concerning loans to Manivong were not established for purposes of the summary judgment motion. The only facts asserted in support of plaintiff’s theories of liability were that the checks were drawn on a joint checking account in the name of defendant and Manivong. The operative first amended complaint alleges a first cause of action against Manivong, but not against defendant, for breach of contract. The remaining causes of action include defendant, and are: second cause of action, quantum meruit; third cause of action, money due on open account; and fourth cause of action, account stated. (A fifth cause of action for fraud was dismissed.) Defendant and Manivong filed a joint answer. Defendant, separately, filed a motion for summary judgment, together with a statement of undisputed facts and supporting documents. Plaintiff filed an opposition, including a statement of disputed and undisputed facts. Defendant filed a reply and an additional declaration in support of the motion. After being granted a continuance to do so, plaintiff filed a further opposition addressing that declaration. The uncontested evidence in the summary judgment motion established that plaintiff did not receive any check signed by defendant, did not ever meet her, and did not talk to her or negotiate with her. Plaintiff alleged in the operative first amended