Wertheim, LLC v. Omidvar CA2/8

Filed 5/31/16 Wertheim, LLC v. Omidvar CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

WERTHEIM, LLC, B257473

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC410386) v.

OLIVER OMIDVAR et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. Affirmed.

The Newell Law Firm and Felton T. Newell for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Buehler & Kassabian, George W. Buehler; Diem Law and Robin L. Diem for Defendants and Respondents.

**********

Plaintiff and appellant Wertheim, LLC appeals from the entry of judgment, after a jury trial, in favor of defendants and respondents Oliver Omidvar, Parviz Omidvar and Currency Corporation. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action for interference with contract, interference with prospective business advantage and trade libel in March 2009. Plaintiff tried the case only on the cause of action for interference with contract. Plaintiff contended that in September 2006, defendants entered into three line of credit agreements with third party Leonard Borisoff, a songwriter. As collateral for the credit agreements, Mr. Borisoff gave defendants a security interest in certain royalty income owed to Mr. Borisoff. In 2007, plaintiff entered into a contract with Mr. Borisoff in which it purchased his royalty and income rights. The purchase contract included an assignment of any rights Mr. Borisoff may have had against the defendants. Plaintiff contended the credit agreements between defendants and Mr. Borisoff were void and unenforceable and interfered with plaintiff’s contract with Mr. Borisoff. Trial began in April 2014. The proceedings were not reported by a court reporter. Apparently, at the close of evidence, plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the grounds the evidence established defendants’ credit agreements with Mr. Borisoff were void and unenforceable. The motion was denied. It is not included in the clerk’s transcript on appeal. The court’s order is not included in the clerk’s transcript either. The jury found in favor of defendants. Separate, but identical, verdict forms were submitted regarding each defendant. The first question on each special verdict form asked: “Did a valid contract exist between plaintiff Wertheim LLC and Leonard Borisoff?” The jury answered “no” on each verdict form. The special verdict forms directed that in the event the jury answered “no” to question No. 1, then it should sign and return the verdicts. Judgment in favor of defendants was entered on May 20, 2014. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, contending the court erred by denying its motion for directed verdict, by failing to instruct the jury on certain laws, including various provisions of the Financial Code which demonstrated the illegality of defendants’