Masloub v. Masloub CA4/1

Filed 11/20/25 Masloub v. Masloub CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MARWAN MASLOUB, D085714

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIC1702632)

MAHER MASLOUB,

Defendant and Respondent;

JAY SALMAN,

Movant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside, Chad W. Firetag, Judge. Affirmed.

Oliver Law Center and Dana J. Oliver for Appellant. Awad & Awad and Akram A. Awad for Respondent, Marwan Masloub. Law Offices of John Calfee Mulvana and John C. Mulvana for Respondent, Maher Masloub.

Jay Salman appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate or modify a judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

473.1 Because Salman was not party to this action and did not demonstrate that he was an aggrieved party eligible to file a section 473 vacatur motion, the trial action properly denied his motion. Accordingly, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Marwan and Maher Masloub are brothers2 who agreed to purchase foreclosed properties and flip them. Under the authority of a power of attorney, Maher withdrew $484,990 from Marwan’s account between March 2012 and August 2014―money Maher’s business, MJ Ventures, ostensibly utilized to purchase properties. In April 2015, Marwan sought the return of his money under the terms the brothers had previously agreed upon, which Maher declined to do. Following Maher’s failure to return the money, Marwan filed suit for breach of contract in 2017, naming Maher in his individual capacity and Maher doing business as MJ Ventures. During the mandatory settlement conference in 2019, the brothers came to a settlement agreement. Despite that binding oral agreement, Maher did not sign the settlement agreement. Marwan filed a motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to section 664.6; he served a copy of the motion on Jay Salman, Maher’s business associate, via his retained counsel. Salman was previously named but then dismissed from the Masloub suit and pursued other legal matters with Maher. Salman’s counsel sought “a full release” for Salman from the Masloub suit, promising Marwan would “get