Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)

Citation: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Parent Document: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-10-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3006950/boston-llc-v-juarez/ ↗

Full Text

2,236 chars

2
Given our standard of review, and because, when a judgment is correct, we “affirm it
regardless of the trial court’s reasoning” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 939, 956), we reject defendant’s contention we should reverse because the trial court
improperly consulted unpublished appellate opinions in deciding how to rule on the legal issues
presented. We also reject defendant’s contention reversal is warranted because the court improperly
used in limine rulings, rather than statutory motions such as for judgment on the pleadings, to exclude
evidence and eliminate instructions and special verdicts. The court correctly exercised its statutory and
inherent powers to manage the case by deciding evidentiary and legal issues in advance of trial through
the in limine motions. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 128; McMillin Cos., LLC v. American Safety Indemnity
Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 518, 529.) Moreover, defendant forfeited any contention regarding the
propriety of the in limine motions by failing to object to the motions in the trial court. (See Araiza v.
Younkin (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1127.)
5
The unlawful detainer action in the present case was based on Code of Civil Procedure
section 1161, subdivision (3), due to defendant’s “failure to perform . . . conditions or
covenants of the lease or agreement under which the property is held . . . .” Even though not
specifically provided by this section, case law requires that a breach be material in order to
justify an unlawful detainer action. (See NIVO 1 LLC v. Antunez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th
Supp. 1, 5 [collecting cases].) Thus, “[w]hether a particular breach will give a plaintiff landlord
the right to declare a forfeiture is based on whether the breach is material. ‘The law sensibly
recognizes that although every instance of noncompliance with a contract’s terms constitutes a
breach, not every breach justifies treating the contract as terminated. [Citations.] Following
the lead of the Restatements of Contracts, California courts allow termination only if the breach
can be classified as “material,” “substantial,” or “total.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text