Sun v. Electro Medical Instrumentation Corp. CA4/3

Filed 3/27/14 Sun v. Electro Medical Instrumentation Corp. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BIANCA SUN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G048547

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00526383)

ELECTRO MEDICAL OPINION INSTRUMENTATION CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila Fell, Judge. Affirmed. Venable, William J. Briggs, II, and Witt W. Chang, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Nigel Burns, Nigel Burns and Erin A. Huang, for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION Bianca Sun appeals from a judgment that includes an award of attorney fees to respondents Electro Medical Instrumentation Corporation (Electro Medical) and Jack Beard after respondents prevailed in a jury trial regarding a promissory note with an attorney fee provision. Electro Medical borrowed the money from Sun, and Beard guaranteed the loan. After they won, the trial court awarded respondents approximately $36,000 in attorney fees, and Sun appeals from that portion of the judgment. Although Sun has identified several issues on appeal, there are really only two issues: whether Electro Medical is entitled to fees at all, and whether Beard is entitled to an award of attorney fees as Electro Medical’s guarantor, even though the guaranty itself does not include an attorney fee provision. Both respondents are entitled to fees, and we affirm the portion of the judgment awarding fees to them. FACTS Sun sued Beard and Electro Medical on two promissory notes, one for $200,000 and the other for $53,000. As to the latter note, Electro Medical was the borrower, and Beard individually was the guarantor. The loan portion of the note, signed by Beard on behalf of Electro Medical, contained an attorney fee provision; the guaranty 1 did not. The lawsuit on the notes resulted in a jury verdict for the defense. The jury determined the contract terms were not clear enough “so that the parties could understand what each was required to do.” The special verdict form did not distinguish between the 2 two notes.