Safaei v. IHOP
Filed 9/28/10 Safaei v. IHOP CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ALI SAFAEI,
Plaintiff,
Cross-defendant and Appellant,
v.
IHOP CORP. et al.,
Defendants,
Cross-complainants and Respondents.
E046996
(Super.Ct.No.
RCV092446)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of San
Bernardino County. Ben
T. Kayashima, Judge. (Retired judge of
the San Bernardino Super. Ct.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.) Affirmed.
Laflam
Sullivan and Laura M. Sullivan for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.
Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Kenneth C. Feldman, and Barry Zoller for
Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff,
cross-defendant and appellant Ali Safaei appeals from judgment following the
trial court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of defendants, cross-complainants and respondents IHOP Corp., IHOP
Properties, Inc., and International House of Pancakes, Inc.[1] (referred to collectively as IHOP). Safaei contends: (1) IHOP did not establish that the
parties' franchise agreement was automatically terminated as a matter of law,
and he was not required to tender franchise fees when IHOP refused to perform;
(2) IHOP failed to give him an opportunity to cure; (3) he produced
evidence establishing his performance or the excuse of his contractual
obligations; (4) material factual issues exist regarding IHOP's duty of good
faith and fair dealing; (5) IHOP was not entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on his equitable claims; and (6)
IHOP was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his claim for unfair
business practices.
We conclude that
no triable issues of fact exist, and we therefore affirm the judgment.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Franchise Agreement
In
December 1991, Safaei entered into a franchise agreement with IHOP for the
operation of a restaurant in Ontario, California. Safaei paid IHOP $200,000 for the franchise,
which had an initial term of 25 years with an option to renew for an additional
10 years.
The franchise
agreement provided that it would â€
| Description | Plaintiff, cross-defendant and appellant Ali Safaei appeals from judgment following the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, cross-complainants and respondents IHOP Corp., IHOP Properties, Inc., and International House of Pancakes, Inc.[1] (referred to collectively as IHOP). Safaei contends: (1) IHOP did not establish that the parties' franchise agreement was automatically terminated as a matter of law, and he was not required to tender franchise fees when IHOP refused to perform; (2) IHOP failed to give him an opportunity to cure; (3) he produced evidence establishing his performance or the excuse of his contractual obligations; (4) material factual issues exist regarding IHOP's duty of good faith and fair dealing; (5) IHOP was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his equitable claims; and (6) IHOP was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his claim for unfair business practices. Court conclude that no triable issues of fact exist, and Court therefore affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
