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

2,373 chars

4     The Complaint also alleged a cause of action for discrimination under
the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52) against FISM based on
alleged national-origin and sexual-orientation discrimination, which
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed prior to defendants’ filing of their motion for
summary adjudication.
                                       10
      Further the Complaint alleged that the parties entered into a “mutual
oral agreement that each party has the right to renew the contract every year
and if either party would not renew then adequate notice for yearly tenancy
would be given to the other party to allow for orderly relocation and removal
of the trade fixtures and Plaintiffs’ business good will.” Specifically, the
Complaint alleged that “[u]nder the oral terms, each party was entitled to
adequate legal notice in the event one side decided not to renew. Plaintiffs
understood this ‘adequate notice’ to be a minimum of 60 days.”
      With respect to the nature of the parties’ relationship, the Complaint
alleged that the parties entered into a landlord/tenant relationship despite
the language in the vendor’s permit stating otherwise. According to the
Complaint, “Defendant’s unilateral description of relationship with Plaintiffs
as ‘licensee/licensor’ does not change the fact that it was a landlord/tenant
relationship and its overwhelming characteristics mirror [a] landlord tenant
relationship including payment of rent, security deposit, utilities, etc.”
      The breach of contract cause of action was based on the theory that
FISM and Shapiro were liable because (1) they gave plaintiff a 30-day notice,
instead of a 60-day notice that FISM would not renew the vendor’s permit;
(2) they terminated the vendor’s permit even though “Plaintiffs did not
violate the agreement or any regulations;” (3) they “denied Plaintiffs the
ability to sell or transfer the business” in breach of the requirement that
FISM “not unreasonably deny Plaintiffs the right to sell or transfer the said
business;” and (4) they withheld $680.00 of the security deposit.
      The cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing was based on allegations similar to those in the breach of contract
cause of action, along with an allegation that FISM and Shapiro “seized
[plaintiffs’] personal property within the said business.”

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text