1351 Orizaba Avenue v. Nissani CA2/8

Filed 11/15/22 1351 Orizaba Avenue v. Nissani CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

1351 ORIZABA AVENUE, LLC, B305765

Cross-complainant and Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BC651307

v.

HOOMAN MICHAEL NISSANI,

Cross-defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Sotelo, Judge. Affirmed. McCreary and Duncan J. McCreary for Cross-defendant and Appellant. Madden, Jones, Cole & Johnson and Montgomery Cole for Cross-complainant and Respondent. ____________________

HTL Automotive, Inc. and Hooman Michael Nissani (together, Tenant) leased commercial property from 1351 Orizaba Avenue, LLC (Landlord). The lease obliged Tenant to repair the property, to maintain it, and to surrender it in good order. The lease addendum warned “the roof of the Premises leaks.” Tenant did not repair the property during the entire nine-year lease term and surrendered it in bad shape. The parties sued each other, with Tenant seeking damages from environmental remediation efforts unrelated to any roof leaks, and Landlord seeking unpaid rent, late fees, and damages relating to the property’s condition. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded Landlord roughly $750,000 and Tenant nothing. We affirm. Tenant failed to demonstrate reversible error. As in other appeals, we presume the trial court reached the right result. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) Appellants have the burden to establish error justifying reversal by presenting pertinent legal authority and factual analysis supported by appropriate record citations. (Ibid.; Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655.) They also must provide a summary of significant facts of record and must state the facts fairly. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 940–941, 944.) As we will explain below, Tenant failed to carry its burden here. The following principles guide our review. Generally, the meaning of the parties’ contract is a legal question subject to our independent review. (See Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern Cal. Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 818–819.) To the extent Tenant’s appeal challenges the trial court’s factfinding, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings. (Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570,