Filed 12/12/19 (after filing of partially published opinion on 12/12/19 (unmodified opn. attached)) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ENA NORTH BEACH, INC., et al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, A152431 v. (San Francisco County 524 UNION STREET et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC-15-547922) Defendants and Appellants. ENA NORTH BEACH, INC., et al., A152937 Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-15-547922) 524 UNION STREET et al., Defendants and Appellants. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: On the Court’s own motion the opinion filed herein on December 12, 2019, is modified as follows: On page 48, under the “DISPOSITION” heading, the first full paragraph is deleted, and the following sentence is added to read: The judgment is affirmed. Dated: ______________ _________________________ Kline, P.J. * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I., A., B., C., D., and III. 1 Trial Court: San Francisco County Superior Court Trial Judge: Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellants: Wood Robbins B. Douglas Robbins Leyla M. Pasic Kelley A. Harvilla Attorneys for Defendants and Appellants: Kerr & Wagstaffe Wagstaffe, Von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick James M. Wagstaffe Michael Von Loewenfeldt Draper Law Firm Ann McFarland Draper 2 Filed 12/12/19 (unmodified opinion) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ENA NORTH BEACH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A152431 v. 524 UNION STREET et al., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-15-547922) Defendants and Appellants. ENA NORTH BEACH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A152937 v. (San Francisco County 524 UNION STREET et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC-15-547922) Defendants and Appellants. After leasing premises owned by 524 Union Street for purposes of opening a restaurant, respondent ENA North Beach was unable to open because the San Francisco Planning Department determined that an existing conditional use authorization for the property was no longer effective and a new one could not be granted. ENA North Beach filed suit against the lessors, claiming false representations and failure to disclose material facts regarding the problems with the conditional use authorization. A jury found in favor of ENA North Beach and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. ENA North Beach’s cross-appeal challenges the trial court’s decision to reduce the amount of the punitive damages award against 524 Union Street. We conclude that the jury’s * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I., A., B., C., D., and III. 1 verdict on liability, including liability for punitive damages, is supported by substantial evidence. Although we conclude the trial court employed an improper procedural mechanism in reducing the amount of the punitive damages award, we affirm the judgment for the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals