BBR Investments v. Dividesfahani CA2/7

Filed 8/17/21 BBR Investments v. Dividesfahani CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

BBR INVESTMENTS, LLC, B305907

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC659218) v.

SHAHRIAR DAVIDESFAHANI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory Keosian, Judge. Affirmed. Verus Law Group and Holly Walker for Plaintiff and Respondent. Rodriguez Law Group and Patricia Rodriguez for Defendant and Appellant.

___________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Shahriar Davidesfahani appeals from the amended judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion by BBR Investments, LLC for summary judgment in BBR’s action against Davidesfahani for breach of his guaranty of a line of credit for his business, Mah-Zad Corporation. Davidesfahani argues he “lacked thorough consideration of his obligations by the fault of” BBR, “which made it impossible for [him] to perform.” Davidesfahani also challenges the order awarding BBR $4,491.43 in attorneys’ fees and $2,209.43 in costs. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 8, 2013 Mah-Zad borrowed $225,000 from US Bank in the form of a revocable line of credit evidenced by a promissory note and secured by Mah-Zad’s assets, inventory, and equipment. Davidesfahani, Mah-Zad’s president, signed the Demand Line of Credit Agreement. Mah-Zad agreed that, if it drew on the line of credit, it would make monthly interest payments at the rate of prime plus 2.5 percent and that all amounts due were payable on demand. Mah-Zad also agreed it would pay the bank’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the event of litigation. Davidesfahani signed a continuing guaranty, which guaranteed Mah-Zad’s obligations under the line of credit, including Mah-Zad’s obligation to pay the bank’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Mah-Zad failed to make timely payments and began to incur late fees and interest. On June 2, 2015 US Bank sent demand letters to Mah-Zad and Davidesfahani, stating the bank