Murphy v. Arnel Management Co. CA4/3

Filed 1/23/25 Murphy v. Arnel Management Co. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ANDREW MURPHY,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063269

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022- 01279156) ARNEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed. Andrew Murphy, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kimball, Tirey & St. John, Abel Ortiz, and Jozef G. Magyar for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Andrew Murphy filed a lawsuit against respondent Arnel Management Company (Arnel) for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Murphy alleged he and Arnel had an agreement by which he could stay in his rented premises if Arnel did not increase his rent. After allowing one amendment to Murphy’s complaint, the trial court sustained Arnel’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case. The trial court found that the alleged contract was barred by the statute of frauds. On appeal, Murphy argues the trial court erred because the alleged agreement was enforceable under an exception which allows a contract covered by the statute of frauds to be enforced if it is fully performed. He also contends the trial court should have allowed him leave to amend his pleading. We affirm the judgment because Murphy has shown no error. STATEMENT OF FACTS1 Murphy rented an apartment through or from Arnel starting in May 2015.2 Around April of 2021, Murphy e-mailed Arnel’s agent or representative offering to stay in his apartment after the expiration of his lease if Arnel would not raise his monthly rent of $1620. Arnel did not explicitly accept or reject Murphy’s offer. After Murphy’s lease expired, Arnel did not offer a new lease. Instead, it continued to accept the same rent Murphy had been paying under his lease.