Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

1,873 chars

Mohamed Aljabban appeals from an adverse judgment after a bench
trial in the lawsuit that he and his wife, Jacqueline Carrasco, filed against
Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (FISM), Jonathan Shapiro and Victor
Ramirez (collectively, defendants).1 Aljabban also separately appeals from
the orders awarding attorney fees and costs to defendants.
      Aljabban and Carrasco operated a beauty salon on the premises of an
indoor swap meet managed by FISM and its president, Shapiro. Aljabban
contends that (1) the trial court erred in concluding that he and Carrasco
were not permitted to remove a sink/cabinet unit, a water heater and some
decorative molding when vacating the premises of the beauty salon; (2) FISM
and Shapiro improperly withheld $680.00 of the security deposit to cover
expenses it incurred to repair damage to the premises; (3) the trial court
should have found that FISM and Shapiro breached the parties’ agreement
under which Aljabban and Carrasco occupied the premises because they
wrongfully failed to renew it; and (4) he did not receive a fair trial because of
alleged misbehavior during trial by Shapiro.
      We conclude that only one of Aljabban’s contentions has merit.
Specifically, FISM was not entitled to withhold $680.00 of the security
deposit to cover the expense of repairing damage to the premises, as the
parties did not specifically agree that the security deposit could be used to
cover repairs. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment and direct the trial
court to enter judgment in favor of Aljabban against FISM in the amount of
$680.00 on the breach of contract and conversion causes of action, and in
favor of defendants on all remaining causes of action. Further, because we
reverse the judgment, we also reverse the attorney fee and costs award, and
we remand for further proceedings on the issue of attorney fees and costs.

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text