This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract

BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Billan-Pahal Corporation, et al.

Published: Jul. 22, 2022 | Filing Date: Jan. 31, 2019 |

Case number: 1:19-cv-00140-DAD-EPG Summary Judgment –  $1,486,544

Judge

Dale A. Drozd

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher C. Miles
(Husch Blackwell LLP)


Defendant

Nathan S. Miller
(Miller & Ayala LLP)


Facts

In October 2012, Bhanjo Pahal and General Electric Capital Corporation (GECC) entered into the first of several loan agreements, whereby GECC agreed to finance the purchase of equipment for use in Pahal's business. Pahal entered into four additional loan agreements with GECC, with Pahal's total repayment obligations under the five agreements ranging from $72,347 to $192,058. In October 2015, Pahal entered into six loan agreements with Transportation Truck and Trailer Solutions, LLC (TTTS), whereby they also agreed to finance Pahal's purchase of equipment for use in his business. In November 2014, Pahal served as a guarantor on six loan agreements between GE Capital Commercial and Billan-Pahal Corporation. Under these agreements, Pahal guaranteed Billan-Pahal Corporation's full and timely performance of all present and future liabilities to the loan entities for a total obligation of $1,860,636. In December 2015, the three loan entities transferred and assigned to BMO Harris Bank all their rights under the accounts associated with Pahal, Billan-Pahal Corporation, and Gurdeep Billan. In February 2016, BMO entered into twenty-one modification agreements modifying he terms of the loan agreements, including adding that failure to make a payment when due was considered an event of default and that BMO may accelerate the amount due and take possession of property underlying the agreement in the even of a default. In additional, in the event of a default, defendants were obligated to pay late charges and default interest of 18% per year, as well as costs associated with enforcing the agreement. Prior to filing the action, BMO took possession of plaintiff's vehicles that were the subject of the agreements and sold each vehicle but it was not enough to cover the outstanding balance. BMO made demands upon Pahal to pay the amounts due under the agreements, and on December 28, 2018, sent their final demand through their counsel. On March 26, 2019, BMO Harris Bank filed a first amended complaint against Billan-Pahal Corporation, Gurdeep Billan, Ranjodh Billan, and Bhanjo Pahal for breach of contract of the Pahal loan agreement and breach of contract of the Pahal guaranties. BMO later filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to the three individuals after each one filed for bankruptcy. Billan-Pahal Corporation, Gurdeep Billan, and Ranjodh Billan were terminated as defendants in the action without prejudice in light of filing a notice of dismissal, making Bhanjo Pahal the sole remaining defendant. As of February 5, 2021, the amount due and owing on the agreements, excluding attorneys' fees and expenses, was approximately $1,305,140.09.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the agreements were valid because defendants executed the agreements and monies were advanced per those agreements. Further, plaintiff alleged that it did not matter that defendant Pahal did not understand what he was signing since an inability to understand English does not preclude a meeting of the minds. Plaintiff also asserted that it has incurred damages due to defendants' default and continued to accrue interest on the balances. Plaintiff maintained that it should be awarded $1,486,544.36 in damages and $34,950 in attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the action.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and a judgment of $1,486,544.36 was entered in favor of plaintiff.


#139105

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390