Quadri v. Alkayali


Filed 3/9/11 Quadri v. Alkayali CA4/3




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

AKRAM QUADRI et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. AHMAD ALKAYALI et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

G042758 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00113872) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed.
The Eclipse Group and Edward F. O'Connor for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.
Smith, Chapman & Campbell, Steven C. Smith, John S. Clifford and Mark T. Kearney for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents.

* * *
The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-defendants Akram Quadri and Fatma Boukhari, who are married to each other (individual plaintiffs), and NeoCell Corporation against defendants and cross-complainants Ahmad Alkayali (Alkayali) and Terri Alkayali, finding the individual plaintiffs owned all the shares in NeoCell and defendants owned none. The judgment also included a permanent injunction barring defendants from the NeoCell premises.
Defendants' appeal raises several issues. They claim the court erred by denying them a jury trial on the declaratory relief causes of action as to stock ownership, the statement of decision was insufficient, the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, the injunction should not have issued, and plaintiffs are barred from recovering by unclean hands. Finding none of these arguments meritorious, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Introduction
As appellants, defendants were required to â€