Vision Manufacturing Inc. v. Ken Miller, Jennifer Miller, Surfer Girl, LP
Published: Sep. 15, 2007 | Result Date: Aug. 3, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: GIN051053 Bench Decision – Defense
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Brad H. Nakase
(NAKASE LAW FIRM, INC.)
Alvin M. Gomez
(Gomez Law Group APC)
Defendant
Aran J. Wong
(Coast Law Group LLP)
Facts
Defendants Ken and Jennifer Miller (husband and wife) and Surfer Girl, LP own a commercial building in Vista. The defendants leased the property to plaintiff Vision Manufacturing Inc. (VMI), a circuit board manufacturer. A 3,000 square foot mezzanine within the building was unpermitted and city officials told VMI it could not occupy the mezzanine offices.
The plaintiff and defendant Ken Miller negotiated an amended lease under which defendants provided VMI with several benefits to accommodate for the inability to occupy the mezzanine. These benefits included tenant improvements, rent abatement and a promise to undertake steps to secure permits for occupancy of the mezzanine. The amended lease also included an express release by VMI of all claims related to the mezzanine.
When the parties realized the permitting issues were more complicated than anticipated, and would require extensive construction, the plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract, failure to disclose, fraud and negligence.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended the unpermitted nature of the mezzanine was not disclosed prior to the execution of the original lease. The plaintiff further alleged the lease amendment containing the express release was voidable on grounds of economic duress, undue influence and/or mutual mistake of fact.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant maintained the lack of permits for the mezzanine was orally disclosed to plaintiff and plaintiff's real estate agent. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff's lawsuit was barred by virtue of the express release in the lease amendment.
Settlement Discussions
Prior to trial the plaintiff demanded $40,000. The defendants made no offer to plaintiff.
Damages
The plaintiff sought lost profits in excess of $100,000. The plaintiff also sought reimbursement of moving costs and tenant improvements exceeding another $110,000.
Result
Court granted defendants' motion for judgment (C.C.P. section 631.8) as to all causes of action.
Other Information
FILING DATE: March 10, 2006.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390