Moladina v. Naimi CA2/5
Defendant and appellant Soheil Naimi appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Abdul M. Moladina in this action arising from an investment. On appeal, Naimi contends: (1) the trial court erred by permitting Moladina to contradict deemed admissions; (2) there is no substantial evidence to support findings as to each cause of action, including the finding that Naimi made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce Moladina to invest in the project; and (3) there was no basis for an award of attorney fees. We conclude the finding of fraud is supported by substantial evidence. Naimi has not shown that any of the deemed admissions negated an element of the cause of action for fraud or was contrary to a fact proven at trial. Since Naimi was properly found liable for fraud, we need not consider whether substantial evidence also supported liability for the same damages under other legal theories.
Comments on Moladina v. Naimi CA2/5