H.T.L. Properties, LLC v. Speck CA2/2

Filed 4/26/22 H.T.L. Properties, LLC v. Speck CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

H.T.L. PROPERTIES, LLC et al. B302436

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC677442) v.

JAMES SPECK et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael P. Vicencia, Judge. Affirmed.

McCreary and Duncan J. McCreary for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Ferruzzo & Ferruzzo, Gregory J. Ferruzzo, Alex C. Verdegem and Sean E. Morrissey for Defendants and Respondents. ______________________________

This litigation arises out of a dispute between certain entities and individuals concerning the use of a large electronic sign in the City of Long Beach to advertise car dealerships in the area. When plaintiffs and appellants H.T.L. Properties, LLC (HTL Properties) and HTL Automotive, Inc. (HTL Automotive), were denied use of the sign, they filed a lawsuit against defendants and respondents James Speck (Speck), Circle Automotive Group, Inc. (Circle Auto), and Electra Media, Inc. (EMI), claiming that defendants wrongfully denied them use of the sign. Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment and were awarded attorney fees and costs. HTL Properties and HTL Automotive appealed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment, and on May 4, 2021, we dismissed HTL Automotive’s appeal because it was not in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board and affirmed the judgment against HTL Properties. (H.T.L. Properties, LLC v. Speck (May 4, 2021), B299160 [nonpub. opn.], p. 21.) They now appeal the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs. Because the trial court did not err in awarding defendants attorney fees and costs, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND As set forth in our prior opinion, the parties dispute the use of an electronic advertising sign. Use of that sign is governed by the North East Long Beach Advertising Association’s (NEDA) agreement (the NEDA agreement). (H.T.L. Properties, LLC v. Speck, supra, B299160, at p. 3.) According to the terms of the NEDA agreement, the NEDA sign is used solely for identifying NEDA members’ auto dealerships. Only NEDA members may use the NEDA sign. HTL Automotive became a member of NEDA in 2008 when it purchased a participating car dealership.