Hastings Village Investment Co. v. Old Navy



Filed 6/13/11 Hastings Village Investment Co. v. Old Navy CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

HASTINGS VILLAGE INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. OLD NAVY, LLC, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

B224681 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GC043026)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph De Vanon, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Cohen, Stimpert & Ford, Daniel P. Stimpert; Benedon & Serlin, Gerald M. Serlin and Kelly R. Horwitz for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.
Crowell & Moring, Jennifer S. Romano and Michael Y. Kao for Defendant, Cross‑complainant and Respondent.

___________________________________

Plaintiff, cross-defendant, and appellant Hastings Village Investment Company, L.P., appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant, cross-complainant, and respondent Old Navy, LLC, in this action arising out of a shopping center lease agreement. Hastings contends: 1) cotenancy requirements of the agreement applied only during the first five years of the lease term, or 2) if the provisions are ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence supports Hastings' interpretation of the agreement. We agree with the trial court that the agreement is unambiguous and the cotenancy requirements apply to the entire term of the lease, including extensions of the lease. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTS

Hastings owns a retail shopping center in Pasadena. On September 21, 1999, Old Navy entered into an agreement to lease space in the shopping center.
Under the lease term provisions, the â€