R & T Investments v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. CA3

Filed 2/9/16 R & T Investments v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

R & T INVESTMENTS, INC. et al., C078231

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 34201200131661CUBCGDS) v.

KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

In this judgment roll appeal,1 plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in failing to exclude evidence of a prior criminal conviction and in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on promissory estoppel. Finding no merit in their arguments, we affirm.

1 Where, as here, the appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement, an appeal is referred to as a judgment roll appeal. (See Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083.)

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the absence of a record of the evidence offered at trial in this matter, we cannot offer a summary of the underlying facts consistent with the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we recite the procedural background of the case only. In September 2012, plaintiffs R & T Investments, Inc. (R & T), Rancourt Family Trust (Rancourt), Dana Tutt, and Jody Tutt commenced this action by filing a complaint for damages against defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. (Kawasaki) and Richard Perrin.2 That complaint alleged as follows: R & T owns and operates a motorcycle dealership in Carmichael. R & T is owned by Rancourt and Dana. Dana and Jody are husband and wife. Kawasaki distributes new motor vehicles; Perrin is a senior district manager for Kawasaki. In 2009, Dana made contact with Perrin to discuss acquiring the Kawasaki franchise for the Roseville area. From July 2010 through 2012, Perrin made numerous representations to Dana and R & T concerning Kawasaki’s intention to enter into a franchise with R & T for the Roseville market. According to Perrin, the only impediment was the acquisition of a suitable facility from which to operate the dealership. In June 2012, Rancourt and the Tutts purchased a parcel of property in Roseville for the new dealership. In July 2012, Perrin informed Dana that Kawasaki had decided to award the Roseville franchise to another entity. The complaint asserted causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, false promise, and negligent misrepresentation against Kawasaki and causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, concealment, false promise, and negligent misrepresentation against Perrin.