Sarigianides v. Tacos Mexico, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | B250193 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ALEXANDRA SARIGIANIDES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TACOS MEXICO, INC., Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC453089)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Holly E. Kendig, Judge. Affirmed.
Copenbarger & Associates, Paul D. Copenbarger and Elaine B. Alston; John L. Dodd & Associates, John L. Dodd and Benjamin Ekenes, for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Office of Rosalinda V. Amash, Rosalinda V. Amash, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * The trial court found that the tenant who rented a building equipped to operate a fast food restaurant breached its lease by vacating early, by removing most of the restaurant's kitchen fixtures, and by leaving the building in a state of disrepair. The tenant challenges this ruling and the court's subsequent award of damages and prejudgment interest on the grounds that the trial court erred in (1) precluding the tenant from calling two witnesses, (2) finding that the tenant had invoked the five-year extension of the underlying 10-year lease, (3) finding that the landlord was entitled to $350,453.45 in damages to the building and its fixtures, and (4) awarding prejudgment interest on those building and fixture-related damages. We conclude there was no error, and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Because this appeal involves challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's findings, we recount the facts in the light most favorable to those findings and defer to the trial court's credibility findings. (Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Assn, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1027.)
Plaintiff Alexandra Sarigianides (Alexandra) and her son Aris (Aris) have been in the fast food restaurant business for years.1 Alexandra owns the 1100 to 1200 square foot building at 5741 East Imperial Highway, in the city of South Gate; for decades, Alexandra and Aris have either operated a fast food restaurant from this location or rented it out to others to operate their own restaurant. Defendant Tacos Mexico, Inc. (TMI) for many years operated a chain of fast food restaurants and now licenses its brand name out to independent restaurateurs.
In 1998, Alexandra leased the East Imperial Highway building to TMI to operate a "fast food restaurant" for a 10-year period running from May 1, 1998 through April 30,2008. Under the terms of the written lease, TMI was to accept the premises "as is." When TMI took possession in 1998, the building was a "fully functioning" restaurant in good condition, albeit with kitchen and dining fixtures that had been in use for a while. On a going-forward basis, TMI was obligated to "keep the [p]remises . . . in good order, condition and repair," including making any "restorations, replacements or renewals" at its "sole cost and expense." TMI was also to pay all property taxes. TMI agreed to "surrender the [p]remises" at the end of the lease term "with all of the improvements, parts and surfaces thereof clean and free of debris, and in good operating order, condition and state of repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted," and with "any damage occasioned by the installation, maintenance or removal of [its own] [t]rade [f]ixtures" repaired. The lease also gave TMI the option to extend the lease for up to an additional five years, which TMI could exercise by providing "a written notice" to Alexandra between three and nine months before the April 30, 2008 expiration of the underlying lease.
In May 2007, Aris was running the day-to-day business for his mother. He received a call from Patty Sanchez (Sanchez), who was the daughter of TMI's founder and a TMI employee who had stated in a federal court proceeding that she was an authorized representative of TMI. Sanchez told Aris that TMI was going to sell its business to Carlos Solares (Solares), and that she wanted Aris's approval for TMI to sublet the East Imperial Highway restaurant to Solares for five years. Aris said he would approve the sublease only if TMI remained the primary tenant and guarantor. TMI agreed that it would need to exercise the option to extend the underlying lease by five years, and after an eventual reminder call from Aris, TMI faxed Aris a letter exercising the option in October or November of 2007. Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf expressed interest to Aris in leasing the East Imperial Highway location in 2008, but Aris turned away that potential opportunity because TMI had exercised its option.
In November 2010, Solares informed TMI that he was vacating the East Imperial Highway location by the end of that month, and TMI informed Aris it wouldconsequently be terminating the lease. TMI's final rent check was for November 2010. Solares nevertheless continued operating his business into December, and TMI never surrendered the keys; Aris had to hire a locksmith, and regained access in late December 2010.
What he found was a "mess." Sunlight streamed through a "gaping hole" in the ceiling and roof; water from a recent rainstorm pooled on the ground; one of the interior walls was missing; and debris and garbage littered the floor. The restaurant itself had been "gutted." Many of its fixtures—including the sink, one of its fryers, and the ice-making apparatus of the ice machine—had been ripped out and carried away, leaving exposed electrical wiring. Other fixtures—including the stainless steel shelving, the walk-in refrigerator, the booths, and one of the exhaust hoods—had been swapped with cheaper and less durable substitutes.
Aris hired a broker to lease the building. The broker found an auto title lender to lease the location 16 months later, but had to offer five months of free rent as an incentive.
Alexandra sued TMI for breach of contract, and sought (1) unpaid rent for the balance of the extended lease term, and (2) the cost of repairing the building and replacing the missing or downgraded fixtures. The case proceeded to a 10-day bench trial.
After considering objections to its tentative ruling, the trial court issued a 25-page final ruling in Alexandra's favor. More specifically, the court (1) concluded that TMI had breached the lease by vacating prior to the end of the five-year extension without paying rent and property taxes, (2) concluded that TMI had breached the lease's covenant to repair by not returning the building and its fixtures in the condition in which they were received in 1998, and (3) calculated damages of $81,698.10 in unpaid rent, $8,987.66 in unpaid property taxes, and $354,738.45 in costs to obtain entry, to repair the building, to make emergency repairs, to replace the fixtures, and to pay the portion of the broker's fee attributable to TMI's early departure.
The court entered judgment for Alexandra in the amount of $445,424.21. TMI filed a motion for new trial, a motion to vacate the judgment, a motion to set aside the ruling due to fraud, and a motion to disqualify the trial judge. All were denied. Alexandra sought costs, attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest. The trial court awarded costs, attorney's fees, and $101,951.96 in prejudgment interest—$18,367.94 as to the unpaid rent and property taxes from the dates they became due, and $83,485.02 as to the repair and restoration costs from the date Alexandra filed her complaint.
TMI separately appealed the judgment and the postjudgment orders. We consolidated the two appeals.
DISCUSSION
TMI argues that it is entitled to a new trial because the trial court did not allow it to call Sanchez or Solares as witnesses in its case-in-chief.
Prior to the final status conference and pursuant to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Local Rules, rule 3.25(f)(1), Alexandra and TMI submitted a joint witness list that, for each party, listed which witnesses "will" testify and which "may" testify. Alexandra listed Sanchez and Solares as witnesses who "will" testify; they were not on TMI's list.
In its opening statement, TMI delineated its witnesses and their anticipated testimony; TMI made no mention of Sanchez or Solares. During its case-in-chief, Alexandra mentioned how she was unable to serve either Sanchez or Solares with subpoenas, and ultimately rested without calling either witness.
After Alexandra rested her case, TMI sought the court's permission to call Jose Venegas as a witness. The trial court refused to allow Venegas to testify because he was not on TMI's pretrial witness list TMI said nothing about Sanchez or Solares.
The next day, TMI announced its intention to call Sanchez and Solares as witnesses. TMI's counsel revealed that she had been in contact with Sanchez and Solares while Alexandra was presenting her case-in-chief, and had known how to contact Sanchez the whole time. Counsel further indicated that she decided to call Sanchez as animpeachment witness after hearing Aris's testimony. After the trial court stated its initial inclination not to allow TMI to call either witness because they were not listed as actual or potential witnesses for TMI on the pretrial witness list, TMI's counsel stated she had intended to call both witnesses all along and had misunderstood the court's requirement that TMI separately list any witnesses already listed by Alexandra on the joint witness list.
The trial court ultimately ruled that TMI could not call Sanchez or Solares as...
To continue reading
Request your trial