Facts

Song Chin Pak and Song Chun Pak (The Paks) were tenants in Pine's commercial building in Long Beach, where the Paks ran a restaurant. Pine filed an unlawful detainer action against the Paks for nonpayment of rent, which resulted in a stipulated judgment in favor of Pine. As part of the stipulated judgment, the parties executed a lease assignment agreement whereby the Paks were allowed to propose for Pine's consideration a qualified lease assignee, who would buy and take over the running of the Paks' restaurant. The Paks did propose one potential lease assignee but, based on the financial information provided, Pine determined that the assignee was not financially qualified to assume the rent and run the restaurant. The Paks did not nominate another lease assignee / restaurant buyer and did not exercise their option to extend the time within which to do so.

Consequently, pursuant to the lease assignment agreement, the Paks had to surrender the premises so that Pine could find a new tenant.

In their original complaint, the Paks alleged eight causes of action against Pine, two in contract and six in tort. Through successive demurrers, Pine eliminated all of the tort causes of action and narrowed the contract causes of action to the alleged breach of the lease assignment agreement.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In their initial and first amended complaints, the Paks claimed that they were unable to pay their rent because Pine, in renovating the building, forced them to lose customers. In the second, third, and fourth amended complaints, the Paks claim was limited to Pine unreasonably withholding its consent of the Paks' proposed lease assignee.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Pine's position was that it did not act unreasonably or without consent of the Paks' proposed lease assignee. Specifically, Pine determined that based on the financial information the Paks provided, the Paks' proposed lease assignee was not financially qualified to assume the rent and run the restaurant. Since The Paks did not nominate another lease assignee and did not exercise their option to extend the time within which to do so, the Paks had to, pursuant to the lease assignment agreement, surrender the premises so that Pine could find a new tenant. As a result of Paks' breach of the lease assignment agreement, Pine incurred $127,182 in post-surrender damages, without interest, plus contractual attorney's fees and contractual expenses, including court costs.

Damages

The Paks asked for "no less than $8.5 million dollars" in special damages in their complaint, plus an unspecified amount of general damages and punitive damages, against Pine.

Result

On April 27, 2011, the court granted Pine's motion for a judgment, under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, subdivision (a), on Paks' third amended complaint in favor of Pine and against the Paks whereby the Paks took nothing by their complaint. On April 27, 2012, trial continued as to Pine's cross-complaint against the Paks for breach of the lease agreement. The court found that the Paks had breached the lease and were liable to Pine for damages totaling $127,182. On May 25, 2012, the court entered judgment on Pine's cross-complaint in favor of Pine and against the Paks, jointly and severally, for 157,750, including interest. On July 10, 2012, costs in the amount of $11,067, were entered on the judgment, bringing the total to $168,817. On Sept. 5, 2012, the court granted Pine's motion for post-judgment contractual attorney fees, in the amount of $341,348, bringing the total judgment to $510,164.

Other Information

On day-one of the trial, the Hurs petitioned for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Pine's cross-complaint as to the Hurs and the Hurs' cross-complaint against the Paks were severed and stayed. Trial proceeded on the Paks' complaint and Pine's cross-complaint as to the Paks. FILING DATE: Jan. 7, 2010.