NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 1 ______________ No. 19-3043 1 ______________ MUHAMMAD SAJID v. MOHAMMAD IJAZ; SHAISTA IJAZ Mohammad Ijaz, Appellant 1 ______________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-18-cv-01899) District Judge: Honorable Wendy Beetlestone 1 ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 28, 2020 1 ______________ Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 8, 2020) 1 ______________ OPINION* 1 ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment against Appellant Mohammad Ijaz for common law fraud and awarded Appellee Muhammad Sajid $106,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Ijaz challenges the District Court’s common law fraud determination and the punitive damages award. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment. I. In August 2016, Ijaz placed an advertisement in the Urdu Times, a weekly Urdu-language community newspaper, listing the “urgent sale” of a gas station located in West Chester, Pennsylvania.1 App. 70 (¶ 4). The advertisement identified the gas station as “[a] highly profitable business . . . with excellent monthly income” that was “available for immediate sale.” App. 31 (¶ 7). Although the gas station was owned by Ijaz’s wife, Shaista Ijaz, neither owned the land on which the gas station was located. Instead, they leased it from a third-party landlord and were allowed to sublease the property only with the landlord’s consent. Sajid saw the advertisement in New York, where he worked as a limousine driver. After speaking with Ijaz on the phone, Sajid agreed to meet Ijaz at the gas station to discuss the potential sale. Later, Ijaz showed Sajid what he represented to be receipts from previous years’ sales, which indicated convenience store revenue 1 Ijaz disputes many of the facts presented by Sajid. The District Court accepted Sajid’s version of the facts as more credible than Ijaz’s. We see no reason to doubt the District Court’s findings of fact. See Ragan v. Tri-Cty. Excavating, Inc., 62 F.3d 501, 507 (3d Cir. 1995) (“When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52(a) demands even greater deference to the trial court’s findings.”). 2 ranging from $1,200 to $1,400 per day. He also represented that nearly 3,000 gallons of gasoline were sold each day for approximately $1,200 per day in profit. Ijaz did not inform Sajid that he did not own the property on which the gas station was located and that his ability to transfer the property was contingent on the landlord’s consent. Sajid eventually agreed to the purchase of the gas station (including the gas in the ground), the attached convenience store, its inventory, and equipment for $45,000. After receiving the payment, Ijaz informed Sajid that his attorney was preparing a written agreement to memorialize the sale. In the interim, Sajid operated the gas station from September ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals