Kordbacheh v. Ehteshami CA2/4
Filed 5/27/15 Kordbacheh v. Ehteshami CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
ALI KORDBACHEH et al., B254239
Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC097673) v.
KOUROSH EHTESHAMI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Huey P. Cotton, Judge. Affirmed. Kourosh Ehteshami, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Richard T. Miller and Richard T. Miller for Plaintiffs and Respondents. ____________________________
The purchasers of a pizza restaurant, Ali Kordbacheh and Azadeh Ghasabi (jointly, Kordbacheh), sued the seller, Kourosh Ehteshami (sued as Eddie Ehteshami), for breach of contract and fraud. After a bench trial, the court awarded Kordbacheh damages of $62,000 on the fraud claim. In this appeal from the judgment, Ehteshami challenges several pretrial rulings. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND We summarize below the trial court’s findings of fact as set out in its written statement of decision. The record does not include a reporter’s transcript of the trial proceedings. In May 2011, Kordbacheh entered into a “partially written and partially oral” agreement to purchase a pizza restaurant from Ehteshami. Before entering into the agreement, Ehteshami knew that he had no authority to transfer franchise rights or privileges to Kordbacheh. Nevertheless, Ehteshami agreed to provide Kordbacheh with “a fully equipped, permitted and licensed Pizza Plus franchise restaurant on Reseda Boulevard, franchise privileges and rights, and training for the operation of said pizza restaurant,” in return for a total purchase price of $85,000. Ehteshami also agreed to transfer a lease to the premises to Kordbacheh. Problems arose in the lease transfer when the landlord required a new lease agreement and a rent increase. Kordbacheh also discovered that Ehteshami was unable to transfer the promised Pizza Plus franchise for the restaurant. In July 2011, the parties agreed that Kordbacheh would keep the restaurant for payments made to that point of $62,000, and Ehteshami would be released from liability for the lease issues.
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)