Valadez v. Valadez CA4/1
Filed 12/14/23 Valadez v. Valadez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RICARDO VALADEZ, D083002
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1919338)
ISMAEL RAMIREZ VALADEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernadino County, Michael A. Sachs, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Zulu Ali & Associates and Zulu Abdullah Ali, for Defendant and Appellant. Arias & Lockwood, Christopher Lockwood and Ricks & Associates, Kenneth Ricks, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In March of 2018, Ricardo Valadez (Ricardo) and his cousin Ismael Ramirez Valadez (Ismael) entered into an oral contract to purchase a
restaurant.1 In April of 2018, Ricardo paid Ismael $45,000 toward the total
1 For clarity and ease of reference, we use appellant and respondent’s first names. We intend no disrespect.
purchase price of $90,000 and claims that, soon thereafter, Ismael stopped communicating with him. Ricardo filed a complaint in June of 2019 alleging that Ismael failed to purchase the restaurant as they had agreed and instead used the $45,000 for his own benefit. The trial court entered judgment in Ricardo’s favor on his breach of contract cause of action and common count claim in the alternative for $45,000 plus interest and costs. On appeal, Ismael contends the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence. We reject this contention and affirm the trial court’s judgment. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A two-day bench trial began on October 31, 2022. Ricardo, Ismael, and Ismael’s son testified. Ricardo testified that, in March of 2018, his first cousin Ismael reached out to him and proposed they jointly purchase La Mexicana restaurant located in Jarupa Valley, California. They agreed to purchase the restaurant as 50-50 owners, each paying $45,000 toward the $90,000 purchase price. Ismael was to purchase the restaurant in early April of 2018, and Ricardo would then move with his family from Illinois to Ismael’s home in Chino Hills, California and help run the restaurant. Ricardo sent Ismael $45,000 via two wire transfers, the first in late March in the amount of $29,000 and the second in the first week of April in the amount of $16,000. Rather than contributing his $45,000 and immediately purchasing the restaurant, Ismael told Ricardo that he only put down a $20,000 deposit. According to Ricardo, Ismael never told him that he purchased a restaurant, nor did he provide him with any documentation relative to the restaurant.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)