Polo's Mobile Catering Truck Mfg. v. Mendoza CA2/8

Filed 12/13/13 Polo’s Mobile Catering Truck MFG. v. Mendoza CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

POLO’S MOBILE CATERING TRUCK B245564 MFG., INC., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. EC 056429)

v.

MIGUEL CISNEROS MENDOZA et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Donna F. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed with modifications.

Law Offices of Dennis J. Sanchez and Dennis J. Sanchez for Defendants and Appellants.

Guy R. Lochhead for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Plaintiff Polo’s Mobile Catering Truck Mfg., Inc. (Polo’s), prevailed against Miguel Mendoza Cisneros and Dina Margot Castaneda (collectively, defendants) in a breach of contract action after a one-day court trial. The court entered judgment for Polo’s and defendants appealed. With one modification to the judgment, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURE Polo’s complaint alleged Polo’s and defendants entered into an installment contract whereby Polo’s agreed to convert a commercial truck into a commercial mobile catering vehicle for defendants. The amount financed was $56,825. Defendants allegedly defaulted on the contract and owed $48,474.67 when Polo’s commenced the action. The complaint further alleged the parties had entered into a contract for repairs to the mobile catering vehicle, and defendants had also defaulted on that contract. They allegedly owed $10,925 under the contract for repairs. Defendants filed a cross- complaint for breach of contract, fraud, and unfair business practices. At trial, one of Polo’s owners, Magdalena Hernandez, testified. At some point, Polo’s received notice the catering vehicle was impounded in the City of Vernon because an unlicensed driver was operating it. Polo’s paid the tow yard to take possession of the vehicle as the lien holder. After taking possession, Polo’s sent a “Notice of Intention to Dispose of Motor Vehicle” (notice of intent to dispose) to defendants. Defendants were already in default on their payments and did not make any more payments after receiving the notice of intent to dispose. Polo’s sold the vehicle to another customer for $60,000. It was still seeking approximately $4,300 from defendants for the balance due on their installment and repair contracts, after the net resale price had been deducted. The court found for Polo’s on the complaint and cross-complaint and concluded defendants owed Polo’s $4,344.67. Polo’s prepared a proposed judgment stating the defendants owed Polo’s $29,543.50 in principal and $4,508.41 in interest. The court entered the judgment without modification. Defendants timely appealed. DISCUSSION Defendants raise two issues on appeal. First, they contend we must reverse because the notice of intent to dispose did not conform to the requirements of Civil Code