Filed 2/24/15 Young v. Debtwave Credit Counseling CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CHRIS YOUNG et al.,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

DEBTWAVE CREDIT COUNSELING, 

INC.,

 Defendant and Respondent.

 G049508

 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00479121)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Geoffrey T. Glass, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Scott E. Schutzman and Scott E. Schutzman for Plaintiffs 

and Appellants.

Dinsmore & Sandelmann, Frank Sandelmann and Kirsten Stockton for 

Defendant and Respondent.

* * *
2

INTRODUCTION

Chris Young and Freedom Consulting Group, LLC (Freedom), sued 

Debtwave Credit Counseling, Inc. (Debtwave), for quantum meruit. Debtwave filed a 

motion for summary judgment, arguing it was undisputed that Debtwave had not 

requested Young and Freedom to provide any services to it. The trial court granted the 

motion; we affirm. Young and Freedom failed to raise a triable issue of material fact 

countering Debtwave’s evidence that it did not request them to provide it with any 

services. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Johnson Law Group (Johnson) provided debt settlement and debt 

management services to consumers. Debtwave provided back-office processing 

assistance to Johnson. In October 2008, Young contacted Debtwave asking if he could 

refer business to it. Debtwave referred Young to Johnson. Young entered into a 

marketing agreement with Johnson, under the terms of which Young would provide 

promotional and marketing services to Johnson and develop qualified leads for Johnson. 

Johnson agreed to pay Young $1,400 for each qualified lead. 

Young later formed Freedom, which entered into a separate marketing 

agreement with Johnson. Freedom provided the same services to Johnson, and received

the same compensation from Johnson, as had Young. Debtwave was not a party to either 

Young’s or Freedom’s marketing agreements with Johnson. 

In April 2011, Young and Freedom stopped receiving any payments from 

Johnson; apparently, Johnson ceased performing debt settlement and management 

services when its sole partner was suspended from the practice of law. Debtwave 

contacted Johnson’s clients to offer its own debt management services; Johnson’s former 

clients retained Debtwave.
3

Young and Freedom sued Johnson for breach of written contract. Young 

and Freedom later amended the complaint to add a claim for quantum meruit against 

Debtwave. Debtwave filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court 

granted. Judgment was entered in favor of Debtwave; Young and Freedom filed a timely 

notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

We review the trial court’s decision de novo, and we consider all the 

evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers, except that to which an objection 

was made and sustained. (Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (2008) 43 Cal.4th 201, 206.) 

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if the moving papers establish there

is no triable issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “To prevail on the motion, a defendant must demonstrate

the plaintiff’s cause of action has no merit. This requirement can be satisfied by showing 

either one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that a 

complete defense exists. [Citations.] If the defendant meets this requirement, the burden

shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact exists. [Citations.]” 

(We Do Graphics, Inc. v. Mercury Casualty Co. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 131, 135-136.)

In order to recover for quantum meruit, Young and Freedom were required 

to establish (1) the services were requested by Debtwave, (2) the services were provided

by Young and Freedom, (3) Young and Freedom did not provide the services

gratuitously, and (4) there was a mutual expectation that Debtwave would compensate 

Young and Freedom for providing the services. (Strong v. Beydoun (2008) 166 

Cal.App.4th 1398, 1404; Ochs v. PacifiCare of California (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 

794; CACI No. 371.)
4

Debtwave offered admissible evidence that it did not request Young or 

Freedom to, nor did Young or Freedom, deliver any goods to Debtwave, refer any leads 

to Debtwave, or provide any services to Debtwave. This evidence successfully shifted 

the burden to Young and Freedom to produce admissible evidence establishing the 

existence of a triable issue of material fact.

Young and Freedom offered the following admissible evidence in 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment:

(1) Young contacted Debtwave to find out if he could refer business to 

Debtwave. Debtwave’s director of operations provided Young with information on how 

to refer leads to Johnson. Young “understood that although I was initially contracting 

with the Johnson Law Group, Debtwave was facilitating the arrangement and would be 

paid in some way on the leads that I will provide to the Johnson Law Group.”

(2) Young and Freedom were owed $177,727 for 310 qualified leads 

provided to Johnson when Johnson stopped making payments to Young and Freedom in 

April 2011.

(3) Debtwave did not pay Freedom any service fees for clients referred to 

Johnson because Debtwave did not have an agreement with Freedom.

(4) A document attached to the declaration of Young and Freedom’s trial 

counsel, which he declared was “a true and correct copy of a commission summary 

produced by Debtwave, namely Documents DW2000470-DW2000526, which purport to 

be a commission summary listing commissions paid to Chris Young based upon the 

verified leads which he provided to Johnson Law Group.”

(5) A copy of the marketing agreement between Johnson and Freedom, 

which does not contain any mention of or reference to Debtwave.

(6) Debtwave began providing debt management and settlement services to 

Johnson’s clients, including those clients Young and Freedom referred to Johnson, and 

began collecting fees from Young and Freedom’s former clients.
5

None of this evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact 

as to whether Debtwave requested that Young or Freedom provide any services to it. 

Debtwave was not obligated to assume Johnson’s contract with Young or Freedom when 

it took over the servicing of Johnson’s clients. Debtwave did not request, directly or 

impliedly, that Young and Freedom provide it with qualified leads, and there was no 

mutual expectation between Debtwave and Young and Freedom that Debtwave would 

compensate Young and Freedom for leads provided to Johnson. 

At most, the evidence showed Young and Freedom provided services 

which afforded a benefit to Debtwave, those services were not provided gratuitously, and 

Young and Freedom expected to be compensated for those services. The elements 

missing from the evidence are that Debtwave requested Young and Freedom to provide 

the services, and that Debtwave expected to continue to compensate Young and Freedom 

once it took over the business from Johnson. Indeed, Debtwave’s referral of Young 

directly to Johnson when Young asked Debtwave if he could refer business to Debtwave

contradicts any claim that Debtwave requested the services be provided. And there is no 

evidence in the record supporting an inference that Debtwave was aware, at the time 

Young first contracted with Johnson, that Johnson’s sole partner would lose his law 

license, and Debtwave would be in a position to take over the business; Debtwave could 

not have had any expectation that it would compensate Young and Freedom. There is 

simply no objective evidence of the satisfaction of all the requirements for recovery 

under quantum meruit.

Earhart v. William Low Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 503, on which Young and 

Freedom rely, does not change our analysis or conclusion. In Earhart, our Supreme 

Court held that “a party who expends funds and performs services at the request of 

another, under the reasonable belief that the requesting party will compensate him for 

such services, may recover in quantum meruit although the expenditures and services do 

not directly benefit property owned by the requesting party.” (Id. at p. 505.) That case, 
6

however, was vastly different factually. The defendant requested that the plaintiff 

perform construction work on the defendant’s property and on an adjacent parcel of 

property. (Id. at pp. 506-507.) The defendant then refused to pay the plaintiff for any of 

the work performed. (Id. at p. 507.) The trial court found that the defendant owed the 

plaintiff in quantum meruit for the work performed on the defendant’s property, but not 

on the adjoining property because the work on the adjoining property did not benefit the 

defendant directly. (Id. at pp. 507-508.) The Supreme Court, however, reversed that 

portion of the trial court’s ruling. (Id. at p. 516.)

Under the rule of Earhart v. William Low Co., Debtwave might be liable in 

quantum meruit to pay Young and Freedom for work they performed at Debtwave’s 

request but for which Debtwave did not directly benefit. However, the undisputed 

evidence in the appellate record establishes that Debtwave did not request Young and 

Freedom to perform any work or services for it or for any third party. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover costs on appeal.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

IKOLA, J.