Harara

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIMS

Now before me are the parties cross-motions for summary judgment on the counterclaims of defendant and counter-claimant ConocoPhillips Company (“Cono-co”) against plaintiff and counterdefendant Marwan Ahmed Harara.

Conoco’s first counterclaim seeks relief for breach of contract for Harara’s failure to pay in full for a January 6, 2004 delivery of gasoline and for defaulting on his January and February 2004 rent. To prevail on a claim for breach of contract, Conoco must establish (1) the existence of a valid contract (2) Conoco’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) Harara’s breach, and (4) resulting damages. See Reichert v. General Ins. Co., 68 Cal.2d 822, 830 , 69 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 442 P.2d 377 (1968); Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co., 116 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1391 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 412 (2004); 4 Witkin, California Procedure, Pleading § 476 (4th ed.1997); 1 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts § 791 (9th ed.1990). Based on the evidence submitted, Conoco has established that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Harara breached the Franchise Agreement. See Fed.R.Civ.P.…