Summary
interpreting a similar force majeure provision, concluding that "even if the Court were to construe the restrictive laws at issue as a force majeure event, Tenant has not shown that its failure to pay rent was proximately caused by the restrictive laws, as required under the force majeure provision .... Indeed, Tenant concedes that it had the ability to pay the rent during the entirety of the closure periods."
Summary of this case from Vereit Real Estate v. Fitness Int'lOpinion
SACV 21-00142CJC(ADSx)
10-20-2021
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DDRM HILL TOP PLAZA L.P., and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants. DDRM HILL TOP PLAZA L.P., Counterclaimant, v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC Counter-Defendant
JUDGMENT
CORMAC J. CARNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter came before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. On October 20, 2021, the Court granted Defendant DDRM Hill Top Plaza L.P.'s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff Fitness International Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. In accordance with the Court's Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendant for its breach of contract claim in the amount of $796, 525.47.