Dehdashty v. Healy CA2/5

Filed 6/17/14 Dehdashty v. Healy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

HAMID DEHDASHTY, B247225

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC111567) v.

MICHAEL D. HEALY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Richard A. Stone, Judge. Affirmed. Chodos & Associates and David Manning Chodos for Defendant and Appellant. Afifi Law Group and Faryan Andrew Afifi for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Appellant Michael D. Healy appeals from the judgment entered after trial in favor of plaintiff Hamid Dehdashty against defendants Healy, Gourmet Green Room, Inc. (GGR)1, and Matthew J. Tanney.2 The only contention on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to prepare a statement of decision requested by GGR pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 632.3 We requested supplemental briefing from the parties on whether Healy’s failure to request a statement of decision in the trial court precluded him from raising the issue on appeal. We conclude that the failure of Healy to request a statement of decision forfeits the issue on appeal, and he lacks standing to complain that the trial court erred in failing to prepare a statement of decision on behalf of GGR. We therefore affirm the judgment against Healy. The case is based on Dehdashty’s complaint seeking to recover $1.3 million loaned by Dehdashty to GGR, Healy, and Tanney, in connection with the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of