KJ Investment Group v. American Heritage College CA4/3

Filed 1/4/21 KJ Investment Group v. American Heritage College CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

KJ INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G058647

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00989692)

AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE LLC OPINION et. al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard Y. Lee, Judge. Affirmed. Appellants’ requests for judicial notice are denied. Kenney & Kropff and David E. Kenney for Defendants and Appellants. Fox Rothschild, Mitchell S. Kim and Joseph A. Ungaro II for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

The is the second appeal by Chanh Huu Nguyen and American Heritage College (collectively AHC) arising out of the lawsuit filed against them by KJ Investment Group, LLC, for damages related to a breach of the parties’ lease agreement. In the first appeal, AHC challenged the merits of the judgment entered in favor of KJ Investment, and we affirmed the judgment. (KJ Investment Group LLC v. American Heritage College LLC et al. (Oct. 1, 2020, G058270) [nonpub. opn.].) The purpose of this appeal is unclear because, while the notice of appeal references only the posttrial order awarding attorney fees to KJ Investment, AHC’s opening brief focuses primarily on arguing again the merits of the judgment. Indeed, AHC claims the “focal issue on appeal” is that it was “severely prejudic[ed]” in its effort to “obtain[] an accurate and truthful recitation and rendition of facts on the critical question [of] who had the financial responsibility to execute and to pay for improvements inside the [leased] premises . . . .” Consistent with this approach, AHC filed two requests for judicial notice of documents it contends cast doubt on the merits of the judgment. Because the merits of the judgment cannot be reargued in this second appeal—and the record provided would be woefully inadequate for that purpose—we disregard those arguments and deny both requests for judicial notice.1 AHC does make one brief contention relating to the issue of fees and costs. It asserts that “[n]o fees or costs should be awarded” to KJ Investment because the purportedly inaccurate testimony of its principal at trial is somehow attributable to its counsel, who has an ethical duty not to mislead the court. That claim was not asserted in