Tsai v. WRI/San Marcos
Plaintiff (Chin), sued defendant WRI/Rancho San Marcos, LLC (WRI or the landlord), to allege entitlement under his lease to an award of damages and declaratory relief, based on WRI's alleged breach of contract in allowing competing restaurant businesses to operate in the same shopping center. The matter went to court trial and a nonsuit was granted as to one of the businesses, Panda Express (or Panda), which was operating within the premises of another tenant. After trial, the court rendered judgment for the landlord as to the remaining business, Super Buffet, finding no violations of the lease provisions. The court also awarded fees and costs, including expert witness fees. (Code Civ. Proc., 998.)
Chin appeals, contending the trial court incorrectly interpreted the lease in light of his arguments that (1) Chin's lease included an exclusivity paragraph, providing the landlord would not lease any space in the shopping center to any other restaurant whose principal business was a Chinese food restaurant, (2) the landlord breached the lease by allowing Panda Express to operate within the space leased to another tenant, and (3) the landlord breached the lease by allowing the other restaurant, Super Buffet, to serve a significant amount of Chinese food, which therefore represented part of its principal business. He also challenges the award of expert witness fees. Court reviewed Chin's arguments about the allegedly incorrect refusal by the trial court to consider extrinsic evidence to interpret the lease, and find the court followed proper contract interpretation principles. Moreover, nonsuit was appropriately granted as to the Panda Express business, because the lease did not afford Chin relief as to that business within another tenant's business. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's ruling on the Super Buffet claims, regarding the nature of its "principal business." Finally, there was no abuse of discretion in the amount of expert witness fees awarded. Court affirm.
Comments on Tsai v. WRI/San Marcos