Farmhouse DTLA v. Los Angeles Farmers CA2/8

Filed 8/28/23 Farmhouse DTLA v. Los Angeles Farmers CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
FARMHOUSE DTLA INC., B314965
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC681251
v.
LOS ANGELES FARMERS,
INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Affirmed.
Arthur D. Hodge; Krane & Smith, Marc Smith and Vadim
Braslavsky for Defendant and Appellant.
Pritzker Levine, Jonathan K. Levine and Bethany L.
Caracuzzo for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
This is a straightforward case of forfeiture. A party
prevailed in arbitration and asked the trial court to confirm the
award. The losing party objected to this. The court confirmed
the award. The losing party appeals the judgment and raises
arguments it did not present when the court was deciding
whether to confirm the award. The losing party forfeited these
arguments. We affirm.
The winning party at arbitration was Farmhouse DTLA
Inc. (Farmhouse). The losing party was Los Angeles Farmers,
Inc. (LA Farmers). Farmhouse petitioned the trial court to
confirm the arbitration award.
LA Farmers objected and asked the court to vacate the
award. LA Farmers said the award was improper because it:
(1) did not fully adjudicate all issues, (2) gave indefinite ongoing
relief, (3) imposed a monitor, and (4) granted specific
performance without adequate notice.
The court confirmed the award. It considered and rejected
LA Farmers’ four arguments. It entered a judgment in favor of
Farmhouse. LA Farmers appeals this judgment.
On appeal, LA Farmers does not renew its original
arguments. Instead, it argues: (1) the arbitration decision
violated public policy, (2) the arbitration decision violated federal
tax law, (3) we could interpret a contract at issue not to violate
public policy and federal tax law, and (4) LA Farmers did not
agree to be in an illegal partnership.
These appellate theories for opposing the award are
new. The general rule is that parties may not for the first time
on appeal change their theories of recovery. (Phillippe v. Shapell
Industries (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1247, 1256.) LA Farmers asks us to
overturn a trial court decision for reasons it did not give the trial
court. This is improper. LA Farmers has forfeited its novel
appellate arguments.
2
LA Farmers and Farmhouse each request judicial notice of
exhibits they acknowledge were not before the trial court. We
deny these requests. (See Evid. Code, §459.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to
Farmhouse.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, P. J.
GRIMES, J.
3