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

2,176 chars

10     The Complaint was not verified, but to the extent verification of the
pleading has any significance, a similar allegation was made in the verified
first amended complaint.
                                       19
argument and relied on as part of the case. And it is fundamentally different
from evidence: It is a waiver of proof of a fact by conceding its truth, and it
has the effect of removing the matter from the issues. . . .’ [¶] . . . ‘ “When a
trial is had by the Court without a jury, a fact admitted by the pleadings
should be treated as ‘found.’ . . . In such case the facts alleged must be
assumed to exist.’ ” (Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271.) “At least in the absence of some showing of mistake
or inadvertence by the pleading party . . . , and as long as the opposing party
is not contesting the factual allegation . . . , there is nothing unfair or
inappropriate about holding a party to the truth of its unverified factual
allegations.” (Hearn Pacific Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc. (2016)
247 Cal.App.4th 117, 132, citations omitted.) Accordingly, because the
Complaint alleged “the fact that [the relationship with FISM] was a
landlord/tenant relationship,” Aljabban is bound to that factual allegation,
and he may not, on appeal, pursue an argument that is premised on a
contrary allegation.
      Second, even were we to conclude that Aljabban is not precluded from
arguing that he was a licensee rather than a tenant, his status as a licensee
ultimately makes no difference to whether he was permitted to take the
Items upon vacating the space. The case law upon which Aljabban relies
addresses situations in which a licensee has constructed improvements on
real property. (Taylor v. Heydenreich (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 684, 686-688
[family member, who constructed a house and other structures on land
obtained by the landowner through homestead, with no indication the owner
had expected the payment of rent, was a licensee]; City of Vallejo v.
Burrill (1923) 64 Cal.App. 399, 399-404 [a municipality, which constructed a
water pipe on landowner’s property with permission, was a licensee].)

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text