The opinion
Filed 10/1/25 Tseheridis v. Aronas Corp. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
STEVE TSEHERIDIS, as Trustee, etc.,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G064657
v. (Super. Ct. No.
LLTSB2300160)
ARONAS CORPORATION et al.,
OPINION
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Jessica Morgan, Judge. Affirmed.
Brown & Stedman and Edwin B. Brown for Defendants and
Appellants.
Law Offices of Darren P. Trone and Darren P. Trone for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
* * *
Aronas Corporation (Aronas) and Miranda Brito Santiago
(together, Defendants) appeal from an unlawful detainer judgment entered
against them following a bench trial. The judgment awards possession of the
leased premises, a restaurant, to the landlord, plaintiff and respondent Steve
Tseheridis, as trustee of the Tseheridis Family Trust (Plaintiff), along with a
monetary award of $71,022.48. Defendants contend substantial evidence does
not support the judgment. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
A reporter’s transcript was not prepared. The record of the
proceedings at trial is limited to a minute order, a settled statement, and the
exhibits that were attached to the unlawful detainer complaint.
In February 2022, Plaintiff as landlord and Aronas as tenant
entered into a lease (the Lease) for property located at 17509 Foothill
Boulevard, Fontana, California (the Leased Premises.) The Leased Premises
included a restaurant. Rent was set at $9,000 per month with increases of
$250 per month every three years. In addition to the monthly rent, the Lease
had a “profit-sharing” provision requiring Aronas to pay 10 percent of its
gross monthly sales to Plaintiff. Santiago, who was the president, director,
and shareholder of Aronas, personally guaranteed Aronas’s performance
under the Lease.
Paragraph 65 of the Lease states: “This Lease contains all the
agreements of the parties and cannot be amended or modified except by a
written agreement executed by both parties.”
At trial, Santiago testified that Plaintiff asked him to reduce his
monthly rental payments by about $1,000 and “to divert that money towards
the repayment of a loan from Plaintiff.” Defendants offered into evidence two
applications made by Plaintiff to the California Alcohol Beverage Control
2
Board. Plaintiff had signed both applications under penalty of perjury and
they contradicted each other. The trial court overruled objections to the
applications. They do not appear in the appellate record.
Plaintiff testified that Aronas “began paying less than the
agreed-upon monthly rental amount.” Plaintiff brought an unlawful detainer
action against Defendants for failure to pay rent.
The trial court found that Plaintiff was entitled to possession of
the Leased Premises and awarded Plaintiff damages of $71,022.48, which
was comprised of past-due rent, holdover damages, attorney fees, and costs. A
statement of decision was not requested or issued. The unlawful detainer
judgment was entered in April 2024.
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue they were not in breach of the Lease because
Plaintiff had agreed to a rent reduction of $1,000 per month. Defendants
state that although Plaintiff denied agreeing to the rent reduction, his
testimony “cannot be trusted” because the two applications presented to the
California Alcohol Beverage Control Board “had conflicting information in
them about the Restaurant and Aronas.”
“Venerable precedent holds that, in a bench trial, the trial court
is the ‘sole judge’ of witness credibility.” (Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44
Cal.App.5th 570, 582.) By ruling in favor of Plaintiff, the trial court made an
implied finding that Santiago was not credible, and we defer to that finding.
(Gee v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 477, 492.) The two
applications presented to the California Alcohol Beverage Control Board are
not in the appellate record so we cannot consider them.
In addition, the Lease has an integration clause (paragraph 65)
which states that the Lease could not be amended or modified except by a
3
written agreement executed by both parties. Oral modifications to the Lease
were therefore prohibited except to the extent an oral modification had been
executed; that is, fully performed. (LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court
(2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 844, 868; see Civ Code, § 1698, subd. (b).) The record
contains no evidence the asserted rent reduction agreement had been
executed.
Defendants argue the profit-sharing provision was ambiguous
and unconscionable. We need not address that argument because the trial
court did not award damages under the profit-sharing provision.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff may recover costs incurred on
appeal.
SANCHEZ, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DELANEY, J.
BANCROFT, PROTEM, J.*
*Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4