Veggie Creations, Inc. v HBK-Willow, LLC

2017 WL 2713739 (2017)

From our private database of 47,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Veggie Creations, Inc. v HBK-Willow, LLC

United States District Court for the Central District of California
2017 WL 2713739 (2017)

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 911,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 911,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,100 briefs - keyed to 997 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership