Ibrahim

Ibrahim v. Extreme Auto Recovery CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 4, 2014A138663California2,407 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bruiniers, J.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2011, Ibrahim filed a pro se action against Extreme Auto for false arrest and imprisonment,1 assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, retention, supervision and assignment (hereafter negligent hiring), and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.). Extreme Auto moved for summary judgment. We review the evidence submitted on the

1 In the caption of the first amended complaint, Ibrahim referred to his first cause of action as “false allegation and defamation.” In the body of the complaint, he referred to it as “false arrest and imprisonment” and cited Penal Code section 237, which in subdivision (a) sets the punishment for criminal false imprisonment. In the summary judgment papers, Ibrahim did not dispute that the claim was for false arrest and imprisonment.

1 summary judgment motion in the light most favorable to Ibrahim, the nonmoving party.2 (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Ibrahim purchased a Lincoln Towncar in 2006 or 2007 from Enterprise Rent-A- Car. He signed a contract allowing the seller to repossess the vehicle if he failed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.