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

1,212 chars

According to the evidence presented at trial, the volume of business at
the Millenia Beauty Salon declined over time, and Carrasco lost or fired the
employees who had been working in the salon with her. As one FISM
manager testified, “it [was] like a ghost town” in the corner of the Swap Meet
where the salon was located. As Shapiro characterized the situation, “her
business had deteriorated to nothing.”
      On June 26, 2013, Carrasco entered into a listing with a real estate
agent to try to sell the salon business for $30,000. According to Carrasco, she
told Shapiro and managers at FISM that she was trying to sell her business.
Shapiro and the FISM managers, in contrast, testified that they had no
knowledge of Carrasco’s intention to sell. FISM would have welcomed a sale
of the business, as the new owner might have made it more successful.
      On July 11, 2013, FISM sent a notice to Carrasco and Aljabban,
informing them that FISM would not be renewing the vendor’s permit at the
end of the one-year term, and that they should vacate the space by August
11, 2013. According to Shapiro and managers at FISM, they decided that
they would not renew the vendor’s permit because the salon is the main

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text