Filed 11/30/22 Aska Sakan v. LA’s Tasty & Healthy Food CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ASKA SAKAN, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, G060481 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00975694) LA’S TASTY & HEALTHY FOOD, OPINION INC., Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C. Servino, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Levi Reuben Uku, Levi Reuben Uku on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Bove Law Group, Brooke L. Bove on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. LA’s Tasty & Healthy Food, Inc. (Tasty) appeals from a judgment in favor of Aska Sakan, Inc. following a bench trial. At issue below was the validity and enforceability of a deed of trust securing a promissory note Tasty recorded against property owned by Aska Sakan. The trial court found the deed of trust and promissory note were forged, and the court ruled in favor of Aska Sakan on its causes of action for quiet title, cancellation of instrument, and injunctive relief. Tasty contends the judgment should be reversed because the trial court infringed upon its constitutional rights by refusing to provide it with a jury trial. We reject this contention because the record shows both parties agreed the matter was to proceed as a bench trial. Tasty also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, making two related claims: (1) the trial court’s determination the deed of trust and promissory note were forged is not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the court should have ruled in Tasty’s favor despite the court’s concerns about the credibility of certain evidence supporting Tasty’s defense. We conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and will not reevaluate the court’s credibility findings or reweigh the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We take our factual summary from the court’s statement of decision and the available record. I. THE PARTIES AND THE DISPUTE Three individuals are central to this case: Abdurrezag Kaal, Hossein or Frank Wasiri, and Wasiri’s mother-in-law Farideh Nourizadeh. Kaal is in the real estate business and owns several companies in Morocco, where he lives, including a construction company Oujhalkhair Sarl (Oujhalkhair). Kaal came to the United States on a visa. He is the sole shareholder of Aska Sakan, a 2 company incorporated in California in 2014. That year, Aska Sakan purchased a carwash in Yorba Linda. Kaal was introduced to Wasiri, who had prior experience running carwashes. Wasiri became Kaal’s assistant at the carwash and supervised the employees. Nourizadeh lives in Iran and is an owner of Samimi Marble Quarries (Samimi) in Iran, a company involved in mining and selling marble. Tasty, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals