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

879 chars

As we have explained, Shapiro testified that FISM withheld $680.00 of
the security deposit because he had to incur expenses to (1) purchase two new
sinks and remount them; (2) repair a portion of the floor that was removed;
(3) fix holes in the drywall where Carrasco had removed the decorative
molding; and (4) with respect to the water heater, properly strap it down and
hire an electrician to correctly rewire it. Aljabban argues that this testimony
was not sufficient to support a finding that FISM incurred $680.00 in
expenses because Shapiro did not specify the exact amount of money that he
spent on the repairs, and for certain reasons, such as the conflict with other
evidence, Shapiro’s testimony was “hard to believe.”
      We reject Aljabban’s argument. Although Shapiro did not provide an
exact accounting of the amount of expenses he incurred to repair the damage,

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text