Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The dispute centered on ownership of Acapulco Inn Holdings, LLC (AIH), whose sole asset was the Acapulco Inn Bar and Restaurant in Long Beach. After a 2023 evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled that as of 2013 plaintiffs Tracy Alcantar and Aristides Gascon each owned 45 percent of AIH and defendant Donalde Heckman owned 10 percent, while defendants Eugene Rotondo and Timothy Moriarty held no interest and defendant James A. Wieser had never owned one.
In April 2024 the court held a bench trial on the remaining claims—tortious interference with prospective business advantage, conversion, conspiracy, trespass to chattels, fraud, civil theft, and abuse of process—and found for plaintiffs on conversion, civil theft under Penal Code section 496, and conspiracy. On damages, the court valued the Inn at $250,000 in 2017, down from roughly $800,000 in 2014 based on Heckman's willingness to sell his 10 percent interest for $80,000, because the business lost its lease, relocated briefly, and closed, and plaintiffs failed to produce financial records. The court trebled the award and on May 6, 2024 entered judgment for Alcantar and Gascon against defendants jointly and severally for $750,000. Defendants timely appealed, challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damages award.
The Court of Appeal, Division Two, affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The court reviewed the damages award for substantial evidence, deferring to the trial court on credibility and affirming if the factual resolution is supported by substantial evidence. It reiterated that where the fact of damages is certain, the amount need not be calculated with absolute certainty; a reasonable basis of computation suffices, especially where the defendant's own wrongful acts made precise proof difficult (Sargon Enterprises v. USC).
The court found substantial evidence supporting the $250,000 valuation. Owner testimony was admissible: Chiaro called AIH an over-million-dollar business and Alcantar valued it at $800,000 to $1.3 million, and defendants conceded owners may opine on their property's value. The 2014 agreement to sell 10 percent for $80,000 supplied an objective measure, while evidence that the Inn lost its long-time lease, relocated, and closed supported the 2017 discount. The trial court properly drew an adverse inference from plaintiffs' failure to produce business records, and the absence of records went to weight, not admissibility.
The court rejected defendants' remaining points: the trial court was not required to itemize every event between 2014 and 2017 or fully explain its reasoning because neither party requested a statement of decision; the judge's closing-argument comments could not impeach the final order (Jespersen); and Resort Video was distinguishable because it reviewed a new-trial ruling, not a first-instance substantial-evidence review.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the $750,000 judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court's $250,000 valuation before trebling under Penal Code section 496.
- Damages may be approximated on any reasonable basis of computation, and a wrongdoer cannot escape liability because its own conduct made exact measurement impossible.
- Owner testimony and a prior sale agreement can establish business value; missing business records affect the weight of testimony, not its admissibility.
- Because neither party requested a statement of decision, the trial court was not required to detail its reasoning, and its oral-argument comments could not be used against the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces appellate deference to trial-court damages findings and confirms that owner testimony plus a concrete prior transaction can anchor a valuation even when financial records are incomplete, giving litigants in business disputes a workable evidentiary path.
It also carries a practical reminder for bench-trial practice: failing to request a statement of decision leaves the trial court free to explain its valuation only generally, narrowing the record available for appellate review.