This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 03:26:40 (UTC).

STARS ATHLETIC FOUNDATION VS KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST

Case Summary

On 12/27/2017 STARS ATHLETIC FOUNDATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8350

  • Filing Date:

    12/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

STARS ATHLETIC FOUNDATION

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BICKENBACH PAUL H. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

KATZMAN MARC J. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/15/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/6/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

4/25/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/27/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RE: PROJECTED DAMAGES OF PLAINTIFF, STARS ATHLETIC FOUNDATION &

6/26/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RE: PROJECTED DAMAGES OF PLAINTIFF, STARS ATHLETIC FOUNDATION &

DECLARATION OF MARC J. KATZMAN IN SUPPORT OF TILE COURT ORDERED WALKER HEARING AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ?PROJECTEL) DAMAGES? SUBMISSION

6/27/2018: DECLARATION OF MARC J. KATZMAN IN SUPPORT OF TILE COURT ORDERED WALKER HEARING AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ?PROJECTEL) DAMAGES? SUBMISSION

Minute Order

6/28/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF MARC KATZMAN

7/25/2018: DEFENDANT KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF MARC KATZMAN

PLAINTIFF, STARS ATHLETIC FOUNDATION'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST'S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

8/16/2018: PLAINTIFF, STARS ATHLETIC FOUNDATION'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST'S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED NOTICE OF DEMURRER

8/23/2018: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED NOTICE OF DEMURRER

NOTICE OF DEFENDANT APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/30/2018: NOTICE OF DEFENDANT APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF TRIAL & FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

9/14/2018: NOTICE OF TRIAL & FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

Summons

9/28/2018: Summons

KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2) FRAUD (INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION); ETC.

9/28/2018: KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2) FRAUD (INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION); ETC.

Unknown

9/28/2018: Unknown

Answer

9/28/2018: Answer

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/10/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. FRAUD & BUSINESS DISPUTE 3. ATTORNEY FEES; ETC

12/27/2017: COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. FRAUD & BUSINESS DISPUTE 3. ATTORNEY FEES; ETC

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2018
  • Summons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Karamanoukian Trust (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • Summons (Cross-Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2) FRAUD (INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION); ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2018
  • Stipulation; Filed by Karamanoukian Trust (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2018
  • STIPULATION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT, ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • NOTICE OF TRIAL & FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Date Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 04/27/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Stars Athletic Foundation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Stars Athletic Foundation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. FRAUD & BUSINESS DISPUTE 3. ATTORNEY FEES; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688350    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 32

stars athletic foundation,

Plaintiff,

v.

KARAMANOUKIAN TRUST, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC688350

Hearing Date: December 4, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion for summary judgment

BACKGROUND

A. Complaint

Plaintiff Stars Athletic Foundation (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Karamanoukian Trust (“Defendant”) on December 27, 2017. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on May 1, 2018. The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) fraud. Defendant’s demurrer to the fraud cause of action was sustained without leave to amend. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Defendant owns commercial real property located at 922 S. Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, CA (“Premises”). Plaintiff is in the business of providing children with multi-sports centers and ancillary activities. Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (“Lease”) with Defendant pursuant to which Plaintiff leased the Premises. Plaintiff entered into the Lease in order to provide its services to children in the greater San Gabriel Valley area. Defendant breached the Lease by failing to provide, among other things, a working restroom or HVAC system.

B. Cross-Complaint

Defendant cross-complained against Plaintiff and Joanne Bockian on September 28, 2018. The Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud (intentional misrepresentation), (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) negligence. These causes of action are based on Plaintiff’s actions with respect to the Lease.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP section 437c(c) states: “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” A material fact is one that “must relate to some claim or defense in issue under the pleadings, and it must also be essential to the judgment in some way.” (Riverside County Community Facilities District v. Bainbridge 17 (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 644, 653.) The court may not weigh the evidence. (Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 39.) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (CCP § 437c(f)(2).) The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-51.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Lease Negotiations

Defendant has owned the Premises since April 2000. (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 2.) The Premises consists of a single, free-standing industrial building of approximately 10,600 square feet. (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 3.) At all times that Defendant owned the Premises and before Plaintiff entered the Lease, the Premises was used as an industrial warehouse, primarily for storage and manufacturing and distribution of goods. (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 4.)

Commencing in September 2016, the parties began negotiations for Plaintiff to lease the Premises. (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 6.) Because Defendant had plans to redevelop the Premises and surrounding areas, the Premises was priced substantially below market value in order to get a short-term tenant who understood the Premises was being leased “as-is.” (Ibid.)

Prior to signing the Lease on behalf of Plaintiff, Bockian, Plaintiff’s PMK, had reviewed the Lease’s terms several times. (Bockian Depo. pp. 17, 127.) Bockian had also thoroughly toured the Premises and had the opportunity to inspect its systems. (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 7.) During some of these tours, Bockian noted issues with the building including small roof leaks, a broken faucet, and broken HVAC components. (Ibid.) Defendant made timely repairs to fix these issues. (Ibid.)

On April 6, 2017, Bockian conducted a final walk-through of the Premises. (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 8.) At the conclusion of this walk-through, Bockian signed the Lease. (Ibid.)

B. Lease Provisions

The Lease contains several pertinent provisions:

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff’s sole remaining cause of action for breach of contract fails as a matter of law. Specifically, Defendant contends that it complied with its minimal obligations under the Lease by delivering the Premises to Plaintiff in “broom clean” condition and with its promised systems “in good operating condition.” The Court agrees.

In general, the duties of a commercial landlord regarding preparing or maintaining the premises are minimal: “In the absence of an express covenant in the lease, the landlord is not obligated to prepare nonresidential premises for the tenant’s use, or to keep them in repair, except to the extent that he or she retains control over an area used in common by the public or other tenants. [¶] There is no implied covenant by the landlord that nonresidential premises leased are tenantable, or in any particular condition, or fit for the purpose for which they are leased or intended to be used by the tenant, or that they will continue to be fit for such purposes, even though the landlord knows the nature of the use intended.” (Del Taco, Inc. v. University Real Estate Partnership V (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 16, 23 (citing 7 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.1997) ¶ 19:118).) In other words, the landlord has no duty to repair or prepare the premises for the tenant unless the lease expressly so provides. (See Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 4:191.)

Under the terms of the Lease, Plaintiff assumed, and Defendant disclaimed, any obligation to repair and maintain the Premises. (Karamanoukian Decl. Ex. 1, p. 5.) Moreover, Defendant did not assume an obligation to ensure that the Premises was fit for the purpose for which Plaintiff intended to use it. To the contrary, the Lease states in bolded terms: “Lessee is responsible for determining whether or not the Applicable Requirements, and especially the zoning, are appropriate for Lessee’s intended use, and acknowledges that past uses of the Premises may no longer be allowed.” (Karamanoukian Decl. Ex. 1.)

Under the terms of the Lease, Defendant’s obligations with respect to delivery of the Premises to Plaintiff were minimal. In Section 2.2 of the Lease, Defendant agreed to “deliver the Premises to Lessee broom clean and free of debris on the Commencement Date or the Early Possession Date, whichever first occurs (‘Start Date’), and … warrant[ed] that the existing electrical, plumbing, fire sprinkler, lighting, heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems (‘HVAC’), loading doors, sump pumps, if any, and all other such elements in the Premises, other than those constructed by Lessee, shall be in good operating condition on said date….” (Karamanoukian Decl. Ex. 1.) In accordance with this section, Defendant provided the Premises to Plaintiff in “broom clean condition, with the existing systems in good and operating condition for the purposes for which the Premises had been used at the time of leasing, and by making all required repairs.” (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 8; see also Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 7 (stating that, prior to Lease’s execution, Defendant repaired broken faucet, sink leak, and broken HVAC components).) Notably, complying with the Lease in this respect did not entail installation of an air conditioning system in the warehouse as such a system did not exist when the Lease was executed. (Karamanoukian Decl. ¶ 9.)

The undisputed evidence shows that Defendant complied with its obligations under the Lease. By not opposing this motion, Plaintiff has failed to establish a triable issue of material fact.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.