Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC357988, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Judge.
Finestone & Richter, Howard N. Gould and D. Jason Davis for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Lincenberg, Ronald J. Nessim, Jason D. Kogan and Marc E. Masters for Defendants and Respondents Jonathan G. Lasch, Gary Hutchinson, Robert F. Foster, Mark Segal and Precision Dynamics Corporation.
Gartenberg Gelfand Wasson & Selden, Edward Gartenberg and Kristin Sciarra for Defendants and Respondents Robert B. Kraemer, individually and as Trustee, etc.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Walter W. Mosher, Jr., trustee of the Walter W. Mosher, Jr. Living Trust, sued Jonathan G. Lasch and others, alleging various causes of action arising out of a shareholders’ voting agreement dispute. Defendants answered and the case was tried to the court.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, defendants moved for judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8), and the matter was thereafter taken under submission. On November 29, 2006, the trial court granted the motion on plaintiff’s first, second, third, and seventh causes of action. On December 15, plaintiff and defendants separately requested a statement of decision. Defendants submitted a proposed statement with their request, then (on January 4, 2007) submitted an amended proposed statement of decision. On January 16, plaintiff filed objections and his own proposed statement of decision. Defendants objected to plaintiff’s submission and at the same time filed their second amended proposed statement of decision.
All section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Following a hearing held on February 7, the trial court took the matter under submission. On February 27, the court issued this minute order: “In the matter heretofore taken under submission . . ., the Court now issues its Statement of Decision as follows: [¶] Judgment for Defendants . . . on the First, Second, Third and Seventh Causes of action in the Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff . . . has failed to prove each of these claims by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Plaintiff and defendants objected to the purported statement of decision, and both sides asked the court to explain the factual and legal bases for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial. (§ 632.) The trial court did not change its “statement of decision” and on March 13 entered its own judgment in favor of defendants on the first, second, third and seventh causes of action. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
DISCUSSION
We cannot resolve this appeal without a proper statement of decision. Although plaintiff insists the relevant facts are undisputed, defendants disagree, and we have no idea whether the trial court’s decision is based on disputed or undisputed facts. (Compare Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327, 369 [on review of a section 631.8 judgment, the reviewing court may draw its own conclusions of law when the facts are undisputed] with San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. v. Handlery Hotel, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 517, 528 [if decisive facts are disputed, reviewing court may not reverse trial court’s findings if they are supported by substantial evidence].)
Accordingly, we have no choice but to vacate the judgment and to remand this matter to the trial court with directions to comply with section 632. (Miramar Hotel Corp. v. Frank B. Hall & Co. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1126, 1129 [a statement of decision must comply with section 632 by explaining the factual and legal bases for the court’s decision as to the principal controverted issues].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to issue a statement of decision conforming to section 632, and to do so within 30 days after this opinion becomes final. The parties are to pay their own costs on appeal.
We concur: MALLANO, Acting P. J. VOGEL, J.