King v. Batim Property Management CA2/8

Filed 2/20/14 King v. Batim Property Management CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ALLEN R. KING, B246950

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 465552) v.

BATIM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Rita Miller, Judge. Affirmed.

Fischer, Zisblatt & Kiss and Benjamin Kiss for Defendant and Appellant.

Allen R. King, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

SUMMARY After a bench trial, the court ordered judgment for plaintiff, finding the parties established a book account relationship; defendant was an agent for unidentified principals when the book account was started and was therefore liable for unpaid amounts; and the action was timely under the four-year statute of limitations applicable to a book account. We affirm the judgment. FACTS To the extent the facts are uncontested, we take them from the trial court’s statement of decision. Plaintiff Allen R. King is an attorney specializing in landlord-tenant litigation. Defendant Batim Property Management, Inc., manages rental properties for many property owners, providing virtually all the services needed to run the properties, including the review and payment of legal bills. Defendant does not advance costs for the landlords, instead maintaining checking accounts for each property, with both the property owner and defendant as signatories. The property owner would deposit money and defendant would issue and sign checks for expenses. “The checks were imprinted with the property address and [defendant’s] office address, not the property owners’ own address.” Mark Silber, who worked for defendant, had heard about plaintiff, and in September 2005 the two men met at Mr. Silber’s office. The meeting resulted in an understanding that, if defendant referred eviction cases for defendant’s landlord-clients to plaintiff, plaintiff would handle the cases at specified rates. Plaintiff would also advance court costs and perform work without any advance deposit of funds. “The parties understood that, if [defendant] referred a case, [plaintiff] would send his bills to [defendant], not the individual property owners, and that the bills would be paid by [defendant].” According to Mr. Silber, he said at the meeting that he would refer some cases to plaintiff and give him “a trial run.” Shortly after that meeting, on September 27, 2005, defendant referred an unlawful detainer action to plaintiff involving a property at 1088 W. 39th Street. Plaintiff