Tovar v. Luevano
Filed 4/20/06 Tovar v. Luevano CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JOSE TOVAR, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ARMANDO LUEVANO et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. | G035589 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC04160) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven L. Perk, Judge. Affirmed.
Alejandro Alex Murguia for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.
Law Offices of Vital D'Carpio, Lorena Dorantes and Vital D'Carpio for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.
* * *
Defendants and cross-complainants Armando Luevano, Estela Luevano, Alex Aguilar, and Sally Lynn Aguilar, co-owners of a restaurant, appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and cross-defendant Jose Tovar, the proposed buyer for the restaurant. The trial court found that no contract existed between the parties but merely a series of preliminary negotiations and entered a judgment in the amount plaintiff paid defendants in reliance on the completion of the sale. Although defendants do not so characterize their arguments, they, in effect, argue that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In mid-December 2003, plaintiff and Luevano met and discussed plaintiff's purchase of â€
