Brennan Lynn v. Murphy CA4/3

── Brennan Lynn v. Murphy CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 Brennan Lynn v. Murphy CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE BRENNAN LYNN, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, G064470 v. (Super. Ct. No. CIVSB2104344) JAMES MURPHY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. JAMES MURPHY, Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. LLTVA2100810) v. BRENNAN LYNN, INC., Defendant and Respondent; JOANNA DAVIS et al., Defendants.  Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Michael A. Sachs, Judge. Affirmed. Solution Law and Christopher A. Darden for Defendant and Appellant. Fennemore, Daniel C. Stein, and Graham A. Van Leuven for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Defendant James Murphy appeals a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Brennan Lynn, Inc. (BLI) on claims stemming from Murphy’s failure to sell a piece of commercial property to BLI, his tenant, pursuant to an option in BLI’s multi-year lease. After a bench trial, the court found: (1) BLI had timely and properly exercised the option, requiring Murphy to sell the property; and (2) Murphy breached the lease by failing to do so. The court also found BLI had not abandoned its intent to exercise the option even though it continued to pay rent and took measures to move the business to another location. Murphy contends these findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We find he has waived this claim based on his defective brief. But even if he had not, we would disagree with him. We therefore affirm the judgment. FACTS1 Murphy purchased Taylor’s Bar and Grill (Taylor’s) in Bryn Mawr, California in 1990, and by 2005, had consummated the purchase of the 1 As this appeal rests on the sufficiency of the evidence, “in summarizing the facts . . . we ‘must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving him the benefit of every reasonable 2 real property on which the establishment sits. Murphy operated Taylor’s until 2015, at which time he sold the assets of the business to BLI by way of an asset sale and purchase agreement (asset agreement). Murphy retained ownership of the real property, which was to be leased for BLI’s use in operating Taylor’s. Murphy and BLI were to enter a lease at closing of the asset sale, with a base rent of $5,000 per month. The lease was drafted by Murphy’s attorney, Wilfrid Lemann, and signed by both parties at Lemann’s office. The lease provided for a five-year term, beginning on July 29, 2015. Paragraph 44 of the lease also granted BLI and its married principals, Michael and Joanna Davis,2 an option to purchase the property during the lease term. The option stated in pertinent part as follows: “As a condition to exercise this Purchase Option, Tenant cannot be in default (and has not been in default for at least six (6) months prior to exercising this Purchase Option) under the terms of this Lease. The Purchase Option may be exercised by delivering written notice to Landlord. If Tenant exercises this Purchase Option, the purchase price for the Premises shall be deter