Miranda v. Southland Home Investment
Maria Miranda, Zulma Miranda and Juan Miranda, plaintiffs and appellants (hereafter plaintiffs), appeal from the judgment in favor of defendants and respondents, Southland Home Investment, Inc. (Southland), Kamiar Karimpour and Mary Shoup (hereafter referred to collectively as defendants or individually by name), following a jury trial in plaintiffs action for damages based on alleged violations of the notice provisions in the home equity sales contract law, Civil Code section 1695 et seq. The jury found that although Southland and Shoup violated that law, plaintiffs did not suffer any damages.
Plaintiffs contend in this appeal that the evidence supports an award of damages as a matter of law. Plaintiffs made this same claim in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied after noting that although the jury found liability, they also found that plaintiffs failed to prove damages. Plaintiffs also contend the trial court erred in granting Karimpours motion for nonsuit on plaintiffs allegation that Southland is Karimpours alter ego. Court conclude the jurys damage award is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment and in doing so will not address plaintiffs claim regarding Karimpours personal liability.
Comments on Miranda v. Southland Home Investment