Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Hina's Tea in legal battle
by Jonathan Mendick, published on April 1, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Storyline: Food and Drink
Loading images
Hina's Tea announced Monday that it will close soon. Owner Hina Soni, who has been in a legal dispute with her landlord, Gary Orr, since mid-2007, learned last week that Orr was entitled to repossess the property until litigation is complete.
Soni and Orr declined to comment, saying to contact their lawyers.
There are more than 100 court documents attached to the case, number 07AS02841 on the Sacramento County Superior Court's website, some reaching 330 pages.
According to the most recent court order, there are several key disputes unresolved. "There is a triable issue of fact as to the amount of back rent, if any, owed," according to the document. "There also is a triable issue of fact as to when, if ever, the lease commenced."
It also found that Hina's Tea is an unlawful detainer of its property, adding that Orr "is entitled to possession of the premises while the parties litigate the issue of damages."
According to older documents, the disputes of rent owed and whether a lease exists arose in 2006, when Soni and Orr initially met to discuss the property rental. Orr was said to have offered to remodel the property for a certain price and to ensure it complied with building codes. The lease was said to be contingent on these renovations, which didn't go according to plan.
"The allegation (is) that in Orr's role as architect, designer, agent and construction manager, the work performed was substandard, over budget and in need of costly repairs," said another document.
Orr's law-firm don't see it that way.
"Hina's commenced this (legal) action in bad faith with the intent to cease payment to my client," said Dan McGee of Ellis, Coleman, Porier, Lavoie & Steinheimer, which is representing Orr. "The bottom line is we have a business who has been operating from the premises rent free."
Calls to Radoslovich Law Corp., which is representing Soni, were not returned.
"In response to Mr. Orr’s attorney’s comments that Hina’s Tea refused to pay rent without justification, Hina’s Tea does not refuse to pay rent," said a written statement on the business's behalf. "Hina’s Tea believes Mr. Orr was paid all that he is due and that he failed to meet numerous obligations ... These issues, among others, remain subject to ongoing litigation with Mr. Orr and it will be left to the Court to resolve them."
McGee said a trial is set for Sept. 29 to resolve remaining issues.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
- Cam
I was in a very, very, similar situation. The landlord was the owner, provider of improvements, and the contractor. The landlord in my case has over 60 different lawsuits in this county alone. When tenant improvements or other contract obligations go undone and people retaliate, he just uses the courts to silence or break them. Unlawful detainer court is an unfair venue in cases like these, but that's the law as written as the Hina's found out. I tried to get my case consolidated just like they did, and get all my issues aired at once, but was also turned down by the court. Then, the landlord used Res Judicata against me and prevented me from airing my other issues in civil court. They've got an uphill battle now to say the least
If Hina vacates and the situation follows so many in the past, then the landlord will boast that he/she had the last word, Sitting with a property that brings in no rent for the next many months or years, the landlord can probably afford. In the meantime, the landlord, like so many others, lets it deteriorate and we have another blighted property in Midtown.
So in the end it is neighboring businesses residents and Midtown that suffers the broader loss.
Bottom line is if a tenant does not pay rent, there is NO WAY they could hunker down and stay in a retail store for EIGHT MONTHS - so something sounds "off" regarding the landlord's statement.
It doesn't matter if the retailer's lawyers were Jesus and the 12 Apostles in terms of manipulating a situation - if a tenant did not pay rent - it is logistically and legally impossible for them to retain custody of the premises for eight months.
If litigation has gone on for EIGHT MONTHS, I seriously doubt there is ANY merit to landlord Gary Orr's allegation Hina's Tea defaulted on paying the rent. I haven't seen the hundreds of pages of court papers, because I am not privvy to those proprietary confidential details......but I am siding with the folks at Hina's.......why would Hina jeopardize a business which took her many years to build up a huge, loyally devout clientele base? Hina would have to be dumber than a boiled turnip to refuse to pay the rent - the whole thing reeks of harrassment from a landlord who is a conflict seeking personality (?) Would Hina want to be stuck unloading her entire inventory selling it off at cost without making one cent of profit in a "fire sale"? Nope, no retailer wants this scenario.......giving up their entire inventory and fixtures at 50% to 30% discount and seeing a going concern be shut down.
I am confident rent was paid and there are other issues causing this fracas.
Midtown is full of empty, ghostly, forlorn looking retail stores lacking a tenant. There is nothing sadder than seeing yet another great indie retail store go into the "Blank Zone" with dead space. I doubt Gary Orr will be able to recruit a new tenant - with all the negative publicity and brouhaha, what tenant in their right mind would want to take a risk on getting enmeshed with this kind of litigious landlord?
Blockbuster DVD store is leaving as of April 18th, the store across the street from Hina's Tea has been vacant for ages, the former Jamba Juice on J Street has been vacant for well over 2 1/2 years, there is a vacant space on 23rd near K that has been vacant for so long I lost track of when it was closed down, the former Weave Thrift Shop on 20th near J was vacant over one year and then two new different tenants who moved into the old Weave Thrift Shop space went belly up and their business failed - leaving that landlord with vacant space for about 4 years until finally Green Sacramento moved in and will be a stable, long term tenant......the list goes on and on - almost every single block in the business section of Midtown has an empty ghostly looking forlorn retail store with no tenant.
I think pigs will grow wings and fly around 23rd & K before this empty store gets rented!
The issue appears to be more the landlord has decided to make his OWN improvements on the property, and after deciding what to do, calling it a "legal requirement" and doing it, has charged a rate that may or may not be fair.
Without having access to all the proof I cannot say who is right or wrong, but from speaking with the employees there, Hina dropped several hundred thousand on the initial TI (tenant improvements) a few years back, and wasn't interested in spending more on an overinflated price from the landlord's idea of "required new improvements".
Don't assume its a lack of business that is forcing eviction. Assuming will never net you the accurate results, and certainly won't get you by in life. It will only get you into trouble.
Word to businesses out there! Never deal in a lease that lists the landlord as having the ultimate control over your contractors! If you have no control, you could end up paying twice or more the standard rate for construction with no legal grounds!
When I spoke to them about the issue, they suggested, I order the product ahead of time. If I have to order my product, I am going to do it online and save a a trip to the store. The whole point of a brick and mortar store is so that you don't have to think about it... you go in and buy your product and your done. Even so, I'm sorry to see this shop go as it was an asset to the area.