ASAP Copy and Print v. Canon Business Solutions CA2/2

Filed 6/23/14 ASAP Copy and Print v. Canon Business Solutions CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ASAP COPY AND PRINT et al., B249588

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC043358) v.

CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Pfahler, Judge. Affirmed. Nina Ringgold for Plaintiffs and Appellants ASAP Copy and Print and Ali Tazhibi. Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, Andrew K. Alper and Alan H. Fairley, for Respondent Canon Financial Services, Inc. Dorsey & Whitney, Kent J. Schmidt and Lynnda A. McGlinn, for Respondent Canon Solutions America, Inc.

___________________________________

ASAP Copy and Print and its proprietor, Ali Tazhibi (collectively, ASAP), appeal from a postjudgment order (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(2)) awarding to respondents Canon Solutions America, Inc. (formerly Canon Business Solutions, Inc.) (CBS), and Canon Financial Services, Inc. (CFS), attorney fees incurred on appeal. We affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is the fifth appeal filed by ASAP involving a dispute over its acquisition of a photocopier from CBS.1 Mr. Tazhibi, on behalf of ASAP, executed a “Non-Cancellable Rental Agreement” with CBS. The acquisition was financed through a lease from CFS. A dispute between the parties arose after ASAP stopped making payments on the lease and claimed respondents had breached the lease. At the time ASAP stopped making payments, there was approximately $19,000 remaining on the lease. ASAP sued CBS, CFS, and General Electric Capital Corporation (GE), to which CFS had assigned its right under the lease. The action ended at the pleading stage after the superior court sustained respondents’ demurrers to ASAP’s Fourth Amended Complaint and its First Amended Cross-Complaint. The superior court entered a judgment in favor of CBS, CFS, and GE. The court also sanctioned ASAP’s counsel, Nina Ringgold, and awarded attorney fees in favor of respondents as prevailing parties. On June 4, 2012, in consolidated appeals, we affirmed both the judgment and the attorney fee awards. We also awarded the respondents costs on appeal. (ASAP Copy and Print et al. v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., et al. (Jun. 4, 2012, B224295 & B225702) [nonpub. opn.].) On November 2, 2013, CFS filed a motion in the trial court requesting $41,887.50 as a prevailing party in the consolidated appeals. On November 5, 2012, CBS filed a similar motion requesting $60,241.00 against ASAP and Ringgold.