California Clovis LLC v. Sierra Vista Realty LLC, Sierra Vista CH LLC, Sierra Vista Nassim LLC, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive
Published: Dec. 16, 2022 | Result Date: Oct. 4, 2022 | Filing Date: Jul. 11, 2019 |Case number: 1:19-cv-00962-JLT-SKO Summary Judgment – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Eastern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Marshall C. Whitney
(Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLP )
Mandy L. Jeffcoach
(Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLP)
Defendant
Barbara Alexandra Jones
(Duane Morris LLP)
Meagen E. Leary
(Duane Morris LLP)
Elinor H. Murarova
(Duane Morris LLP)
Allison M. Midei
(Duane Morris LLP)
Facts
In March 16, 1988, B&H Clovis Associates entered into an agreement with Mervyn's to sublease part of the Sierra Vista Mall, referred to as "Mervyn's Tract." Mervyn's was the predecessor in interest to California Clovis, whereas Sierra Vista Realty later obtained B&H Clovis's rights to sublease beginning in August 2014. Initially, the sublease's terms were to expire July 31, 2019, but the sublease agreement had six different renewal option periods, each lasting five years. Exercising the renewal required California Clovis to provide notice to Sierra Vista at least nine months before the lease expired. In December 2018, California Clovis's vice president sent a letter to Sierra Vista to essentially "confirm" its exercise of the next two renewal options. Sierra Vista then notified plaintiffs on January 18, 2019, that it had not properly exercised its option to renew the lease and the lease would end on July 31, 2019. On June 7, 2019, California Clovis filed suit to enjoin Sierra Vista from evicting it, to obtain a declaratory judgment that it properly exercised its renewal option and recover damages for its breach of contract. Sierra Vista filed a motion for summary judgment thereafter.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended, among others, that it properly exercised its option to extend its lease under the sublease contract. It alleged that it sent a renewal option notice through regular mail in August 2014 and that regular U.S. mail was an acceptable means for renewing its option under the mailbox rule as regular mail is a reasonable and usual means of communicating notice under the agreement.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued, in part, that plaintiff failed to exercise its rights and the sublease lapsed. Specifically, it argued that regular U.S. mail was not an authorized method of communicating the renewal options under the contract, making plaintiff's attempt to renew untimely. It argued that two provisions in the sublease agreement, when read together, contained express language dictating the method and manner plaintiff had to exercise its option.
Result
The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390