Bodge v. Stan's Big Savings CA4/1

Filed 5/8/25 Bodge v. Stan’s Big Savings CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD BODGE, D084086

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2022- 00009300-CU-MC-CTL) STAN’S BIG SAVINGS, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Loren G. Freestone, Judge. Affirmed. Menhennet Law and Janine R. Menhennet for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Sean Brew and Sean Brew for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Stan’s Big Savings, Inc. (SBS) appeals a judgment entered in favor of Gerald Bodge after a bench trial. The court determined that SBS breached a 2020 addendum to its sub-lease agreement with Bodge. The addendum provided that rent payments from SBS to Bodge would be temporarily abated, and the balance of the rent would be due “at [a] later date.” After hearing extrinsic evidence about the meaning of this provision,

the trial court concluded the abatement was motivated by COVID-19-related business disruptions. The court reasoned that because COVID-related restrictions had been lifted, SBS was now required to pay the balance of the rent. On appeal, SBS first argues the trial court erred by allowing this litigation to proceed because Bodge did not give pre-suit notice of his claim. SBS conflates requirements for unlawful detainer actions, which require pre-suit notice, with breach of contract actions, which generally do not. SBS next argues the trial court erred by considering extrinsic evidence concerning the meaning of the 2020 addendum. But the trial court’s minute order reflects that the parties asked the court to hear such evidence. Even if they had not, we would find the trial court properly heard evidence bearing on the meaning of the parties’ ambiguous agreement. To the extent SBS disagrees with the court’s assessment of the evidence presented at trial, it has not provided an adequate record from which we could conclude the trial court committed any error. Finally, SBS claims the trial court improperly inserted a force majeure clause into the parties’ agreements. We do not agree with SBS’s interpretation of the trial court’s order, which does not improperly read any provisions into the sublease agreement or the addendum. We find no error in the trial court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Bodge rented a commercial space pursuant to a master lease agreement with a non-party landlord. In 2017, Bodge entered into a sublease agreement