Kort v. Hectram CA2/1

Filed 11/16/23 Kort v. Hectram CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

NASSER KORT, B328391

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV30116) v.

HECTRAM, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James A. Kaddo, Judge. Affirmed. Innabi Law Group, Amer Innabi, Abdalla J. Innabi; Davis Law Office, D. Jason Davis for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mark R. Weiner & Associates, Michael H. Park for Defendants and Respondents Hector Erami, Hectram, Inc., and Brenda Rodriguez-Murillo. ___________________________________

Nasser Kort was attacked while dining at a restaurant. He sued the restaurant owner and the owner’s landlord for negligence and premises liability, alleging they owned or controlled the premises and failed their duty to secure the premises despite prior criminal incidents at the same location. The restaurant owner answered the complaint but the landlord defaulted. Kort moved for a default judgment against the landlord but the trial court deferred entering a judgment until the restaurant owner’s liability was established. (A jury ultimately found the restaurant owner not liable.) In its minute order, the court awarded Kort zero money damages and entered judgment for the landlord. Kort appeals, contending the judgment should have been entered before trial and in his favor. We hold that the court properly waited until after trial before entering judgment, but the judgment should have been in Kort’s favor because Lopez was in default. However, the error is nonprejudicial because the court awarded zero damages, and clearly would have done so even had it entered judgment for Kort. Kort otherwise fails to show it would have been “just” to award other than zero damages, which Code of Civil Procedure section 585 requires. We therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND A. The Incident We take the facts, which are largely undisputed, from a defense expert’s recitation at trial, using them only to establish context. On August 2, 2019, Kort was ordering food at “Tijuana’s Tacos,” a restaurant in Pomona. While doing so, Christopher San Luis got into Kort’s Toyota Prius in the parking lot, mistakenly