Veggie Creations, Inc. v HBK-Willow, LLC
United States District Court for the Central District of California
2017 WL 2713739 (2017)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
APPA Valley Farms Real Estate Partnership (APPA) (defendant) was a general partnership with four partners, brothers Thom and Michael Rindt, their father Klaus Rindt, and Jeffrey Knowles. APPA’s partnership agreement stated that the managing partner had sole control over the partnership’s business operations, including sole authority to lease, buy, or sell real property, which was the partnership’s line of business. Although the original partnership agreement named Thom as the managing partner, a 2007 amendment made Klaus the managing partner. APPA leased one of its California commercial properties to Veggie Creations, Inc. (VCI) (plaintiff) under a long-term lease. In June 2015, VCI expressed interest in purchasing the property. In an email exchange, Klaus expressly stated that he was APPA’s managing partner and had ultimate authority over partnership decisions. No purchase occurred. In February 2016, Klaus agreed to sell the property to HBK-Willow, LLC (HBK) (defendant), executing a sale agreement that stated APPA would not enter any new leases on the property pending the sale’s closing. During a conference call in March 2016, HBK notified VCI that it had purchased the property, that HBK would not be entering a new lease with VCI, and that VCI needed to vacate the premises. APPA partners Thom and Michael, who were on the call, told VCI that since the sale to HBK had not yet closed, they could give VCI a new two-year lease. HBK objected. However, two days later, Thom and Michael executed a new lease with VCI. HBK learned of the lease one day before the sale’s closing. VCI sued HBK and APPA. Against HBK, VCI sought a declaratory judgment that the new lease was valid and asserted quiet-title and intentional-interference-with-prospective-economic-advantage claims. HBK moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Klausner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 911,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 997 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


