The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
Plaintiff Toyrrific, LLC maintains that Defendants Edvin Karapetian, Edward Minasyan, Lena Amerkhanian, and EDO Trading, Inc. have violated the terms of the parties' settlement agreement from a predecessor action. To prevail on its breach-of-contract claim, Toyrrific must prove quantifiable damages resulting from such breach. But Toyrrific failed to produce any evidence of damages before the close of discovery, and Defendants now move for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.*fn1
Toyrrific is a leader in the manufacturing, selling, and marketing of airsoft toy guns and remote-control toys. (Additional Material Facts ("AMF") 57.) It also operates HobbyTron, which sells toys through its website, Hobbytron.com. (AMF 58.) Karapetian is a former Toyrrific employee who, along with Minasyan, allegedly stole Toyrrific's products, trade dress, copyrighted materials, trademarks, and trade-secret information to establish a competing business, HobbyChase. (AMF 59.)
As a result of Karapetian and Minasyan's alleged infringement, Toyrrific filed an action against both individuals in August 2010 for copyright infringement and other claims related to the alleged unlawful interference with Toyrrific's company. Toyrrific v. Karapetian ("Toyrrific I"), No. CV 10-5813-ODW(Ex) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010). On November 24, 2010, this Court issued a preliminary injunction in Toyrrific I that enjoined Karapetian and Minasyan from continued infringement of Toyrrific's intellectual property. (UF 1.) The parties ultimately resolved Toyrrific I on December 12, 2011, through the execution of a Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release ("Agreement").
Six months later, on May 23, 2012, Toyrrific filed this subsequent action alleging that Defendants had violated the terms of the Agreement. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Toyrrific maintained that Defendants breached the Agreement by failing to comply with the terms of the Court's preliminary injunction, failing to stop operating a website similar to hobbychase.com, failing to cease operating the HobbyChase business, and failing to deliver assets of HobbyChase as described in the Bill of Sale included with the Agreement. (Id. ¶ 49.) On August 16, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims except for Toyrrific's breach-of-contract claim. (ECF No. 30.)
On March 25, 2013, Defendants moved for summary judgment on Toyriffic's remaining claim. (ECF No. 50.)
Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323--24 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify specific facts through admissible evidence that show a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Conclusory or speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. Thornhill's Publ'g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).
A genuine issue of material fact must be more than a scintilla of evidence, or evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative. Addisu v. Fred Meyer, 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). A disputed fact is "material" where the resolution of that fact might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1968). An issue is "genuine" if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.Where the moving and nonmoving parties' versions of events differ, courts are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
To state a claim for breach of contract under California law, a plaintiff must plead (1) the existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance of a contract; (3) defendant's breach of the contract; and (4) resulting damages. Reichert v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 68 Cal. 2d 822, 830 (1968).
Defendants assert that Toyrrific cannot meet its burden of proving damages because it failed to provide a computation of ...