Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text

1,643 chars
31
court explained that the discovery responses were irrelevant because “[t]he
defense is not making an affirmative claim for damages against the plaintiff.
They’re not asking the plaintiff to pay money.”
      We review the trial court’s admission of evidence under an abuse of
discretion standard of review. (Pannu v. Land Rover North America,
Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1317.)
      We agree with the trial court’s analysis in allowing the admission of the
evidence regarding FISM’s repair to the damage to space H-2 despite FISM
and Shapiro’s discovery responses stating they were not making any claim for
loss or damages. As FISM and Shapiro indicated in their responses to the
form interrogatories, they viewed the interrogatories as asking whether they
were claiming any damages that they believed were compensable in the
lawsuit. FISM and Shapiro signaled that understanding by responding that
the information sought in Form Interrogatory No. 7.1 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.” That response cannot
reasonably be understood as an admission that there was no damage to the
premises after Aljabban and Carrasco moved out or that FISM did not incur
any expenses in repairing the premises. The trial court thus did not abuse its
discretion in admitting testimony relating to the physical damage to the
premises that caused FISM to withhold $680.00 of the security deposit, as
FISM and Shapiro never made an admission to the contrary.