Fang v. Abuershard CA2/5

Filed 9/6/13 Fang v. Abuershard CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LINDA FANG et al., B241507

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC056760) v.

NAZIH ABUERSHARD,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Salvatore T. Sirna, Judge. Affirmed. Kenner Law Group and Jason J.L. Yang for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michael A. Lotta for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiffs and appellants Linda Fang and Maria Luisa Raymundo appeal from a judgment in their favor, following a court retrial on the issue of damages to trees on their properties. They contend the trial court erred in its award of damages because: (a) hearsay testimony of defendant and respondent Nazih Abuershard concerning the replacement cost of the trees was improperly admitted; (b) there was insufficient evidence supporting the court‟s calculation of damages; and (c) the court incorrectly based its award solely on the fair market value of the trees. Appellants request reversal of the damages award and take the position that damages should be awarded in an amount consistent with the testimony of their expert. We find no prejudicial error and affirm.

FACTS In August, 2009, Abuershard approached Fang and offered to pay for a tree service to trim pine and eucalyptus trees on Fang‟s property. Respondent said the trees were a fire hazard. Fang agreed. Abuershard hired Rodrigo Lopez from Cardinal‟s Tree Service to perform the work.1 Lopez cut Fang‟s trees to stumps, and did the same to a pine tree on a neighboring property which belonged to Raymundo. Following a jury trial, appellants prevailed on a negligence cause of action against Abuershard.2 Fang prevailed on a breach of contract cause of action and Raymundo prevailed on a trespass cause of action. At the court retrial on damages, Kerry Norman testified as an expert witness for plaintiffs. He opined the tress were a total loss. The appraised value of Raymundo‟s pine tree (#96) was $5,800. The appraised value of Fang‟s trees totaled $28,300, consisting of $9,100 for the pine tree (#97), $5,800 for one of the eucalyptus trees (#98) and $6,700