Shaheen Dublin v. Haroutoonian CA1/1

Filed 6/26/14 Shaheen Dublin v. Haroutoonian CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

SHAHEEN DUBLIN, LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138839 v. ROBERT HAROUTOONIAN, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. VG10509664) Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND1 In April 2010, plaintiff Shaheen Dublin, LLC sued defendant Robert Haroutoonian for breach of a commercial lease. The lease refers to the landlord as “Dublin/Shaheen, LLC,” instead of using plaintiff’s correct name (Shaheen Dublin, LLC). On February 13, 2013, plaintiff moved under Code of Civil Procedure2 section 664.6 for entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement reflected in a written stipulation signed by the parties in July 2011. The stipulation uses, in different locations, the names Shaheen Dublin, LLC and Dublin/Shaheen, LLC. The trial court concluded the stipulation was a writing, signed by plaintiff and Haroutoonian, “for settlement of the case,” pursuant to which the court could enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor under section 664.6. The court granted plaintiff’s motion and entered judgment for plaintiff and against Haroutoonian, and dismissed other defendants.

1 We provide additional background facts in the sections of this opinion addressing the parties’ arguments on appeal. 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

On appeal, Haroutoonian contends (as he did in opposition to plaintiff’s section 664.6 motion) that, under Business and Professions Code section 17918, plaintiff’s use of the fictitious business name (FBN) Dublin/Shaheen, LLC without filing a fictitious business name statement (FBN statement) precludes plaintiff from maintaining this action. We conclude Haroutoonian waived this objection by failing to raise it earlier in the trial court proceedings. We therefore affirm. II. DISCUSSION A. Haroutoonian Waived His Objection Based on the FBN Statutes “Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. [Citation.] Section 664.6 states that if the parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court, the court, upon a motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”3 (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) As noted, Haroutoonian contends the court should not have entered judgment pursuant to section 664.6 because, under Business and Professions Code section 17918, plaintiff’s use of an FBN (Dublin/Shaheen, LLC) precludes it from maintaining this action. A partnership, corporation, limited liability company or individual doing business under a fictitious name must file an FBN statement. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17910, 17915; see id. §§ 17900, subd. (b)(5), 17902.) Business and Professions Code section 17918 provides: “No person transacting business under a fictitious business name contrary to the provisions of this chapter . . . may maintain any action upon or on account of any contract made, or transaction had, in the fictitious business name in any court of this state until the fictitious business name statement has been executed, filed, and