Gardyn v. Sangha CA1/3

Filed 7/21/14 Gardyn v. Sangha CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CHARLES GARDYN, Plaintiff and Respondent, A134558 v. JASBIR SANGHA, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS031180) Defendant and Appellant.

On appeal from a judgment after the court confirmed an arbitration award and denied her petition to vacate, Jasbir Sangha contends the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to issue a statement of decision. Both contentions are meritless, so we affirm. BACKGROUND The following facts, which are largely undisputed, are taken from the arbitrator’s written decision. In March 2007, Gardyn, as lessor, and Sangha and her late husband, as lessees, entered into a five-year commercial lease and option agreement for Gardyn’s property in Benicia. The Sanghas intended to renovate the property and operate a pizzeria. The Sanghas agreed to pay rent of $7,500 on or before the first day of each month, with a $500 late fee for failure to make timely payments. Paragraph 11 of the California Association of Realtors form lease stated: “CONDITION OF PREMISES: Tenant has examined the Premises and acknowledges that Premise is clean and in operative condition, with the following exceptions: NO EXCEPTIONS. TENANT

1

TAKING PREMISES IN ‘AS IS CONDITION’ Items listed as exception shall be dealt with in the following manner: TENANT INTENDS TO COMPLETELY RENOVATED [sic] ALL MECHANICAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL ETC ON AND AROUND THE PROPERTY.” An arbitration clause specified that any disputes between the parties would be decided by an arbitrator “in accordance with substantive California Law.” The parties also initialed the following provision: “ ‘NOTICE: BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE “ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES” PROVISION DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL, UNLESS THOSE RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE “ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES” PROVISION.’ ” As an addendum to the lease, the parties executed an option agreement giving the Sanghas the right to purchase the property for $1,300,000, adjusted according to the U.S. Consumer Price Index. Darshan Sangha hired an architect and had the interior stripped of the electrical and plumbing systems, fixtures, equipment and appliances. But six months into the lease term, while the renovation work was underway, he tragically died in an automobile accident. Rent was current at the time of his death, and Jasbir Sangha continued to pay rent until she missed the payment due December 1, 2007. On December 27 she wrote Gardyn a check for $7,500, noting on the face of the check “Benicia Jan 08.” She made no further payments after that. On February 13, 2008, after two missed rent payments, Gardyn served Sangha with a three-day notice to vacate. After receiving no further payments, he filed actions for wrongful detainer and breach of lease. Sangha cross-complained against Gardyn for breach of lease, breach of the option agreement, and fraud.