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

1,943 chars

41
      Second, at the end of his direct examination, Aljabban interjected,
“Your Honor, can I say something, please?” He then continued, “I want the
man turning his face over there because he’s laughing at me,” apparently
referring to Shapiro. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not ask for any relief from the
trial court based on Shapiro’s alleged behavior. The trial court indicated that
counsel should proceed with cross-examination.
      In both cases, the record does not reflect whether the trial court
concurred with the description of Shapiro’s behavior as stated by plaintiffs’
counsel and Aljabban. Further, there is no indication in the record whether
the problem that plaintiffs perceived with Shapiro continued during the rest
of Carrasco’s or Aljabban’s testimony.
      Although Aljabban’s argument is not clear, he apparently contends that
the trial court denied him a fair trial because of how it responded to Shapiro’s
alleged misbehavior during the trial. “ ‘An appellate court will ordinarily not
consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings, in connection with relief
sought or defenses asserted, where an objection could have been but was not
presented to the lower court by some appropriate method. The circumstances
may involve such intentional acts or acquiescence as to be appropriately
classified under the headings of estoppel or waiver. Often, however, the
explanation is simply that it is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse
party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been
corrected at the trial.’ ” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23
Cal.3d 180, 184.) “Moreover, it would be inappropriate to allow a party not to
object to an error of which the party is or should be aware, ‘ “thereby
permitting the proceedings to go to a conclusion which he may acquiesce in, if
favorable, and which he may avoid, if not.” ’ ” (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85
Cal.App.4th 494, 501.)

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text