Sadati v. Terrace Oak Partners CA1/5

Filed 12/30/15 Sadati v. Terrace Oak Partners CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

MATT SADATI,

Plaintiff and Appellant, A144509

v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC1201205) TERRACE OAK PARTNERS, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent. ________________________________________/

Plaintiff Matt Sadati appeals from a judgment for defendant Terrace Oak Partners, LLC (Terrace Oak) following a bench trial. Sadati contends the court erred by concluding Terrace Oak was not equitably estopped from enforcing a holdover provision in a commercial lease. We affirm. We conclude Sadati has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal. We also conclude Terrace Oak is entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal, and we remand to the trial court with directions to award such fees. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Sadati is “an experienced and knowledgeable real estate professional[.]” In October 2010, Sadati leased an office in a commercial building in Walnut Creek from Terrace Oak for $2,355.55 per month. The one-year lease ended on October 31, 2011. It did not have an option to renew; it included a holdover provision providing that if Sadati held over after the lease expired, the monthly rent would increase to 250 percent of the

1

former amount of $2,355.55, to $5,888.88 per month. The lease authorized the prevailing party in “in any communication, action, and/or proceeding” brought under the lease “to recover all its costs and expenses, including without limitation the fees of its attorneys in [the] . . . action, and/or proceeding.” On November 1, 2010, Terrace Oak’s property manager gave Sadati contact information for its property manager, accountant, and principal, Charles Wall. Sadati did not vacate the premises on October 31, 2011. Pursuant to the holdover provision, the monthly rent increased to $5,888.88. In November and December 2011, Sadati’s company sent Terrace Oak rent checks for $2,355.55. In January 2012, Terrace Oak’s property manager advised Sadati the lease expired on October 31, 2011 and — pursuant to the holdover provision — the rent had increased to $5,888.88. Sadati and Wall were unable to reach an agreement regarding the holdover provision and Sadati vacated the office in March 2012. In May 2012, Sadati filed a complaint against Terrace Oak and others alleging claims for, among other things, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Terrace Oak cross-complained for breach of the lease, seeking to recover $15,762.20 in holdover rent. Sadati moved for summary adjudication on the cross-complaint, claiming Terrace Oak was equitably estopped from enforcing the holdover provision.1 The court denied the motion, concluding Sadati did not establish equitable estoppel applied as a matter of law, in part because he did not explain “how he was ‘ignorant of the true state of facts’ or that his reliance was reasonable.” The court noted the lease was for one year, “included no option for renewal[,]” and “clearly provide[d] that if the tenant holds over, rent would increase by 250%.”