Facts

Chao Hsin Chuan and Su Chen Yeh operated a restaurant named The Sakura, which was Everfresh Food Services' sole business. Neither Chuan nor Yeh were ever paid a salary by Everfresh Food Services. Rosemead Hwang is the landlord of the premises where The Sakura was situated. Chuan and Yeh executed a lease and addendum with Rosemead Hwang for the premises for a term of five years and two months at $3,100 per month. The lease terms also stated that the tenant's common area operating expenses were $1,900 for five years, the tenant had two five-year lease options, and that the base rent would not increase in the first five years of the term, but upon exercise of the options, base rent would increase annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase in Los Angeles County. Everfresh Food Services was not a party to the lease agreement for the premises. Subsequent to the expiration of the lease and closure of The Sakura, Chuan, Yeh, and Everfresh Food Services, LLC brought an action against Rosemead Hwang, LLC.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for breach of lease, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs contended that defendant improperly charged and received payments for common area expenses. Plaintiffs asserted that they requested the ability to exercise the first of the two five-year lease options, but were told that defendant would not renew the lease unless the new rent amount was at "market price." Plaintiffs alleged that they asked Nelson Lee, defendant's real estate broker, to obtain renewal terms or to provide justification for defendant's refusal to abide by the lease terms, but Lee informed plaintiffs that defendant was claiming that it could not verify the legitimacy of the lease agreement. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant was demanding $3 per square foot, which was in excess of the amount allowed under the lease. Plaintiffs alleged that, upon expiration of the lease, plaintiffs were forced to close The Sakura. Plaintiffs argued that they were seeking the value of the restaurant as well as the common area maintenance charges in excess of $1,900 per month, not personal damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions. Defendant asserted that the entire action had no merit because plaintiffs could not demonstrate damages as an element of any of their causes of action. Specifically, defendant contended that the only party claiming damages in this action was plaintiff Everfresh because plaintiff Chuan testified at his deposition that he was not claiming any individual damages in this case, and that plaintiff Yeh was also not claiming any individual damages in this case. Defendant thus argued that the only claim for damages was by plaintiff Everfresh for the loss of value of the restaurant.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.