Singh v. Florin Bradshaw Investors CA3

Filed 6/22/21 Singh v. Florin Bradshaw Investors CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

KAMAR SINGH et al., C091603

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 34201800225360CUBCGDS) v.

FLORIN BRADSHAW INVESTORS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Kamar Singh and Kent Hoggan (collectively plaintiffs) sued defendants Florin Bradshaw Investors, LLC, and SI Real Estate, Inc. (collectively defendants) for declaratory relief, promissory estoppel, specific performance, and breach of contract arising out of two land purchase agreements. Defendants prevailed on their motion for summary adjudication or, in the alternative, summary judgment (the motion). Plaintiffs appeal, asserting the trial court erred in granting the motion because genuine issues of material fact exist.

1

We do not consider the merits of plaintiffs’ arguments because they have failed to comply with several rules of appellate procedure. We thus affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are the assignees of two vacant land purchase agreements and joint escrow instructions, through which plaintiffs sought to purchase two properties from defendants. The first purchase agreement concerned a 70-lot subdivision generally referred to as the Garcia property, which was owned by Florin Bradshaw Investors, LLC. The second purchase agreement concerned a 30-lot subdivision generally referred to as the Lynn property, which was owned by SI Real Estate, Inc. The close of escrow date for both purchases was July 26, 2017. Plaintiffs were unable to close on the properties by July 26, 2017, and defendants declined to extend the deadline and sent a letter canceling the contracts, subject to reinstating the agreements based on mutually acceptable terms and conditions. In their lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that after entering the contract for the purchase of the Garcia property, their lender required a lot line adjustment and that the funding of the purchase be split at 35 lots per closing. The lender further required that the closing on the front 35 lots occur first (since that was where all access and utility stubs would start). Plaintiffs alleged Florin Bradshaw Investors, LLC “agreed and advised” plaintiffs to proceed with a lot line adjustment at a cost of over $15,000 and made representations that “it would agree to split the closings onto two 35 parcel closings.” Plaintiffs alleged they proceeded to incur additional engineering and other fees based on those representations but, when they attempted to close on the front 35 lots of the Garcia property, Florin Bradshaw Investors, LLC, refused to do so and instead made the “impossible demand” that plaintiffs close on the back 35 lots first. Plaintiffs further alleged, as to the Lynn property, they learned during the buyer acquisition period that the property fell within a flood plain and would require additional engineering and entitlement work, resulting in a delay of closing based on the Federal