This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Landlord and Tenant
Breach of Contract

City of Ridgecrest, Ridgecrest Redevelopment Agency v. Matrix Motor Company

Published: Aug. 9, 2008 | Result Date: Apr. 4, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: S-1500-CV-257455 Verdict –  $362,609

Court

Kern Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven P. O'Neill


Defendant

Kim K. Thompson


Facts

On Dec. 22, 2000, plaintiff Ridgecrest Redevelopment Agency entered into a development agreement with defendant Matrix Motor Co. to have defendant relocate from Los Angeles to Ridgecrest for business development purposes. The agreement included a $500,000 loan that would be excused if defendant stayed in business for five years; a $250,000 line of credit; and an option to purchase property. When defendant moved, there was a problem with the sale, so plaintiff leased the property to defendant.

Plaintiff and the city of Ridgecrest (city) sued defendant for breach of the development contract, failure to pay rent, and unlawful detainer with regard to the lease. The defendant brought a separate action against the city that was dismissed with prejudice.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended defendants breached the development agreement, failed to pay rent, and stayed on the premises despite breaking the lease.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended it was plaintiffs who breached because the city had promised to sell defendant the property but did not.

Damages

The city sought return of the $750,000 and defendant's eviction. Defendant argued it was not obligated to pay back the money because plaintiffs breached the contract.

Result

The jury found defendant breached the development agreement and awarded $362,609 in compensatory damages, representing the $250,000 loan plus interest. The jury found the $500,000 loan was excused because defendant stayed in business for five years pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The jury also returned possession of the premises to city.

Other Information

Post trial, plaintiffs moved successfully for attorney's fees and costs.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

12-0

Length

three weeks


#107812

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390