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

1,987 chars

30
      Specifically, plaintiffs pointed to FISM and Shapiro’s responses to Form
Interrogatory Nos. 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. In Form Interrogatory No. 7.1 plaintiffs
asked, “Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property
to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property; [¶] (a) describe the
property; [¶] (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the
property; [¶] (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of
property and how the amount was calculated; . . . .” FISM and Shapiro
responded that the term “ ‘INCIDENT’ ” was “vague, ambiguous and
unintelligible” and that the interrogatory was not relevant to the subject
matter of the action, and was not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence “as Defendant is not making a claim for any
loss or damages in connection with this matter.”
      Form Interrogatory No 7.2 asked if any written estimate or evaluation
of the damage to the property had been made, and Form Interrogatory
No. 7.3 asked if any item of property referred to in response to Form
Interrogatory No. 7.1 had been repaired, and asked for a description of the
repair and the cost. FISM and Shapiro responded “Not applicable” to both.
      At the beginning of the bench trial, the court stated that instead of
ruling on the motions in limine, it would deal with the issues “[a]s things
come up.” Accordingly, during Shapiro’s testimony and the testimony of an
FISM manager, counsel for plaintiffs renewed his objection to the admission
of any evidence regarding FISM’s repair of the physical damage in space H-2
after Aljabban and Carrasco moved out. The trial court overruled the
objection. As the trial court observed, the evidence of the damage to space H-
2 was “being offered for a limited purpose, as I understand, that’s to show
that removal of the fixtures or the removal of certain equipment that caused
some type of structural damage to the integrity of the building.” The trial

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text