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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Failure to Disclose

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)

James W. Woodring


Defendant

Aran J. Wong
(Coast Law Group LLP)

Seyamack Kouretchian

David A. Peck


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.


#120661

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

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