Olaniyi v. Baksh CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Oct 23, 2025 No. B333197Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting a motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error or prejudice, as his claims were either forfeited or unsupported by an adequate record.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8.
Whether the appellant demonstrated prejudicial error regarding his claims of procedural and evidentiary misconduct by the trial court and opposing counsel.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court granted the section 631.8 motion based on its finding that Olaniyi failed to establish multiple elements of breach of warranty and fraud.”

“In sum, all of Olaniyi’s claims of error are either forfeited, are unsupported by an adequate record, or both.”

“Only prejudicial error results in reversal of a judgment. Error is prejudicial when it is probable that the party against whom it was made would have achieved a better result but for the error.”

Filed 10/23/25 Olaniyi v. Baksh CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

CHARLES K. OLANIYI, B333197

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CMCV00027) v.

AJIM BAKSH,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Michael J. Shultz, Judge. Affirmed. Charles K. Olaniyi, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Jillisa L. O’Brien, Jillisa O’Brien, Conor H. McElroy, and Jack David Mantych for Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant and plaintiff in pro. per. Charles K. Olaniyi purchased a duplex. After allegedly discovering various construction defects, he sued the builder, defendant and respondent Ajim Baksh dba Baksh Construction (Baksh), for breach of warranty and fraud. Olaniyi presented his case at a bench trial, and after he rested, the trial court granted Baksh’s motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 631.8.1 Judgment was entered for Baksh, and Olaniyi appealed. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Operative Complaint We summarize the relevant allegations of Olaniyi’s operative verified fourth amended complaint. Baksh constructed the subject duplex, and in early November 2017, executed a written warranty. The warranty covered defects in the workmanship and materials but was limited to “such instances of substantial nonconformity” as to which Olaniyi “shall have given written notice to [Baksh]” during a one-year period. After purchasing the duplex, Olaniyi allegedly discovered problems with the flooring, drainage, sewer lines, water sprinkler systems, landscaping, joists, foundation, roofing, and concrete. He alleged that the installation of an air conditioning system was not completed. Olaniyi also alleged that he notified Baksh of defects in April and June 2018, and Baksh failed to fix the problems, thereby breaching the warranty.

Olaniyi v. Baksh CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

CHARLES K. OLANIYI, B333197

AJIM BAKSH,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, P. J.

TAMZARIAN, J.

AI Brief