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
Commercial Building
Permits/Licenses

Reynolds Seafood v. Matlow-Kennedy

Published: Nov. 26, 2002 | Result Date: Oct. 22, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: NC031223 Verdict –  $0

Judge

William P. Barry

Court

L.A. Superior Compton


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark B. Hartzler


Defendant

Terry A. Rowland
(Demler, Armstrong & Rowland LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

John Ryan
(technical)

Alan D. Wallace
(technical)

Defendant

David Johnston
(technical)

Jack Karp
(technical)

Facts

In May 2000, the plaintiff, Reynolds Seafood, a sea-urchin processing business, relocated from Maine to Los
Angeles and hired the defendant Matlow-KennedyÆs agent, Ed Smith, to represent it and locate a suitable
building. Several buildings were inspected, and eventually Reynolds decided on one located in Long Beach.
According to ReynoldÆs owner, Mr. Chea, his agent Ed Smith had told him that the building was ideal for
seafood processing and that the city would approve that use.
According to Smith, he told Chea, pursuant to industry custom and practice, that the prospective tenant was
responsible for confirming permissible use with the city. Nine months after the lease was signed and Reynolds
had been processing sea urchin, it applied for a business license and was told by Long Beach that such a use
was prohibited.
The plaintiff defaulted on its lease and was evicted, and then stipulated to a judgment for
the balance due under the lease of over $130,000.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff Reynolds demanded that the cross-defendant, the landlord, first pay all outstanding judgments against it (over $600,000) after which a settlement would be considered. The cross-defendants offered to pay approximately $20,000 to the landlord to satisfy its $160,000 judgment, which the landlord said it would accept.

Damages

The plaintiffÆs discovery responses alleged $8.6 million in damages for lost profits, goodwill, improvements to the building and lease costs. The plaintiffÆs expert calculated the value of the business at the time a license was denied at $1,650,000. The defendants argued that the plaintiffÆs records showed significant accounting irregularities (expenses listed as assets; inflated and uncollectable amounts receivable) and that the business was losing money and was heavily in debt.

Deliberation

four hours

Length

five days


#80860

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

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