Sperber v. State of California CA3
Filed 9/22/14 Sperber v. State of California CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
DAVID S. SPERBER, as Trustee, etc., C073003
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201000087767CUBCGDS) v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff David S. Sperber, trustee of the David S. Sperber Revocable Trust, purchased an office building. The building was subject to three existing leases with defendants California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Department of General Services (DGS) for office space in the building. After Caltrans and DGS sent Sperber written notices to terminate the leases, Sperber filed a second amended complaint against those defendants and the State of California requesting declaratory relief and alleging breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract. Caltrans moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion as to the
1
declaratory relief and anticipatory breach causes of action. Sperber, proceeding in pro. per., appeals, challenging the leases’ termination provisions. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2004 Sperber, an attorney, purchased an office building in Redding, California. The prior owners had entered into three separate lease agreements with Caltrans and DGS for Caltrans’s use of the property. DGS was a party to two of the three leases. (Lease Nos. 5132-001, 5132-002.) Caltrans was a party to only one lease. (Lease No. RW- 02109.) Sperber assumed all three leases and in 2009 executed amended leases with both DGS and Caltrans. Lease No. 5132-001 In 2002 the original property owners and DGS entered into a lease providing DGS with office space on the first floor of the building and parking spaces. The original lease began on July 1, 2002, and ended on June 30, 2010. A provision in the lease gave the state the right to terminate the lease any time on or after June 30, 2006, provided the state gave the lessor 30 days’ written notice. In March 2003 the original owners and DGS signed an amendment to the lease to allow the state the use of additional square footage for a two-year period between June 1, 2003, and May 31, 2005. The amendment contained a unilateral termination clause allowing DGS to terminate on or after December 1, 2004. The clause required the state to give the lessor 30 days’ written notice of the intended termination. In March 2005 DGS notified Sperber of its intention to terminate the amended portion of the lease pertaining to the additional office space effective April 30, 2005. In April 2009 DGS sent Sperber a second amendment to the lease, proposing to extend the original lease for an additional two years between July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2012. The amendment included the same terms as the original lease, including
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)