ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (DOC. 53)

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves a breach of contract action arising out of a certain loan agreement and personal guaranties that Defendants expressly agreed upon. Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, loaned Defendant several million dollars. It is undisputed that Defendants failed to repay the loan. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on October 28, 2013. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment.

The Court holds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,582,761.78 on the Canal Crossing loan and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Canal Crossing Phoenix LLC ("Canal Crossing") and its various Guarantors took a loan from Plaintiff and defaulted on it. Plaintiff seeks to recoup the loan.

A. The Canal Crossing Loan

On May 21, 2008, Plaintiff agreed to loan Canal Crossing $6,600,000.00 to construct four (4) office/industrial warehouse buildings in Maricopa County, Arizona. Canal Crossing executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust in favor of Plaintiff for the principal amount of $6,600,000.00. The Canal Crossing loan was also secured by a repayment guaranty signed by Defendants Weisman, Brickman, Boyd and Ran1 ("Guarantors"), individually and as Trustees of their respective Trusts. Under the guaranties, Guarantors agreed, jointly and severally:

The maturity date of the loan was May 2012. On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff delivered a notice of default to Canal Crossing and Guarantors, demanding full and immediate payment of the indebtedness under the loan, in the amount of $3,451,187.10. In January, 2013, the real estate collateralizing the loan was sold for $1,891,615.25 ($3,451,187.10 - $1,559,571.85 = $1,891,615.25). Plaintiff looks to recover the outstanding balance of $1,559,571.85 plus accrued interest of $23,189.932, minus attorney fees of $14,340.00 for a total sum owed of $1,582,761.78.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court will grant summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-57 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment for the Breach of the Canal Crossing Loan and the Corresponding Promissory Notes.

Under Michigan law, the elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of a contract between the parties, (2) the terms of the contract require performance of certain actions, (3) a party breached the contract and (4) the breach caused the other party injury. Burton v. William Beaumont Hospital, 373 F.Supp.2d 707, 718 (Ed. Mich. 2005) (citing Webster v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., 197 F.3d 815, 819 (6th Cir. 1999)).

Defendants do not contest liability under the Canal Crossing loan and its corresponding promissory notes.

By defaulting on the Canal Crossing loan, Defendants breached their contractual obligations under the Loan Agreement. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.

B. Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment Under the Canal Crossing Loan Repayment Guaranties.

Boyd secured the Canal Crossing loan. Pursuant to the Canal Crossing Repayment Guaranty, he is liable for 25% of the outstanding indebtedness.

Defendant does not contest liability under the Canal Crossing Repayment Guaranties. By failing to repay the outstanding balance under the Canal Crossing, Boyd breached his contractual obligation.

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment against this Guarantor.

I. CONCLUSION

The court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,582,761.78 on the Canal Crossing loan.

IT IS ORDERED.