Ginsberg

Ginsberg v. Gamson

Bad Law
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 512·205 Cal. App. 4th 873·2012 WL 1495442
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2012No. B222284California12,681 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bigelow, J.

*879 Opinion

This case concerns a dispute over a commercial lease and the landlord’s performance under that lease. The parties disagreed on whether the tenant has the right to unlimited extensions of the lease. The trial court concluded the lease grants the tenant the right to unlimited five-year extensions for 99 years. A jury subsequently concluded the landlord breached the lease. In addition to compensatory damages, the jury awarded the tenant over $300,000 in punitive damages, based on a claim for “intentional interference with premises.” The trial court issued an injunction ordering the landlord to comply with certain repair obligations under the lease. However, the court struck the punitive damages award.

On appeal, the landlord, Hanna Gamson, contends (1) the trial court erred in concluding the lease gives the tenants, Esther Ginsberg and Harry Eden, the right to unlimited extensions of the lease and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction that exceeds the parties’ rights and responsibilities under the lease. Ginsberg and Eden cross-appeal to challenge the trial court’s order striking the punitive damages award. We reverse the trial court’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.