Thursday, February 26, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
$2 Billion Damages Reduction Needed in $7 Billion Dispute
In Sibling Spat Over Ownership of Los Angeles Apartment Buildings, Opinion Says That Unless Prevailing Parties Agree to Cut in Award Based on Improper Admission of Expert Testimony, New Trial Will Be Ordered
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal has declared that unless the prevailing parties agree that that a judgment for nearly $7 billion be reduced by approximately $2 billion in a family real estate dispute, a new trial will be granted.
At stake is ownership interests in a portfolio that includes 170 apartment buildings located primarily in the San Fernando Valley.
The court opined that an expert witness was improperly permitted to testify as to profits purportedly lost due to an alleged fire sale of certain investments during the 2008 financial crisis by one of a set of brothers, each of whom claimed an ownership stake in the properties, where that opinion was not disclosed to the defense during depositions before trial.
Justice Gregory Weingart authored Tuesday’s opinion, joined in by Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild and Justice Helen I. Bendix, ordering “through remittitur a reduction of economic damages relating to the real estate partnership for this purported $1.98 billion in lost investment profit.” He wrote:
“We…conditionally affirm the judgment….If any of [the prevailing parties] does not agree to the reduction, we reverse and remand for a new trial as to that individual regarding his economic damages arising out of the real estate partnership and his punitive damages.”
Family-Owned Portfolio
The order is the latest in litigation dating back to 2003 when Shashikant “Shashi” Jogani filed a complaint against his brothers relating to a family-owned real estate portfolio, asserting causes of action for breach of contract and of fiduciary duties, fraud, quantum merit, and other claims. According to Shashi Jogani, he began investing in residential apartment properties shortly after he moved to Los Angeles from his native India in 1969.
By the 1980s, the portfolio had a fair market value of approximately $375 million. However, after extensive damage caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, including the collapse of one building, he was in financial straits due to lawsuits by tenants and creditors.
He claimed that he reached out to his brothers, who held ownership interests in a successful international diamond business, for help. Shashi Jogani alleged that Haresh and Rajest Jogani entered into an oral agreement with him under which new companies were formed, and title on the properties was transferred to those entities.
Pursuant to the purported agreement, Shashi Jogani claimed he was to operate as a consultant until he repaid a loan that served to fund improvements and the purchase of additional properties. By 2001, the real estate owned by the alleged partnership was worth approximately $1 billion.
Locked Out of Companies
Shashi Jogani claimed that the lawsuit was filed after Haresh Jogani locked him out of the companies. In 2015, Chetan and Rajest Jogani filed cross-pleadings against the other brothers for breach of contract and other claims.
During the September 2023 trial, William Ackerman testified as Shashi Jogani’s damages expert, and opined that Haresh Jogani should not have sold certain interests held by the real estate partnership in 2008 and that, if he had held on to investments, they would now be worth $1.98 billion.
According to the defendants, this opinion was not disclosed prior to trial despite attempts during deposition testimony to pin the witness down about his intended trial testimony.
The following February, a jury found against Haresh Jogani on breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and intentional misrepresentation claims, finding that Shashi Jogani owned 50% of the partnership, Haresh Jogani held a 24% share, and the other siblings had less than 10% stakes each
On May 9, 2024, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Susan Bryant-Deason ordered entry of judgment against Haresh Jogani totaling approximately $6.85 billion, which included prejudgment interest and economic damages of $1.8 billion to Shashi Jogani, $233 million to Chetan Jogani, and $360 million to Rajesh Jogani as well as punitive damages exceeding $1 billion to each of Shashi and Chetan Jogani and $450 million to Rajesh Jogani.
An amended judgment was entered that October to address attorney fees and the issuance of shares.
Scope of Expert Testimony
Weingart noted that an expert may not offer testimony at trial that exceeds the scope of deposition testimony if the opposing party has no notice or expectation of the new opinion. He wrote:
“Defendants argue that Ackerman did not put them on notice that he would testify that Shashi’s damages included $990 million in unrealized investment gains based on the performance of the S&P 500 (in other words, his 50 percent partnership share of $1.98 billion). We agree.”
He continued:
“Ackerman’s expert declaration and report included a calculation of the $445 million loss, but they gave no indication that he also intended to opine that Haresh should not have sold and that the assets sold at a loss would now be worth $1.98 billion….[W]hen counsel asked for clarification about Ackerman’s opinion(s) regarding how the $445 million investment loss might translate into damages for Shashi, Ackerman expressly restricted his opinion to the $445 million loss and said it was the only theory he intended to offer ‘as to how that investment loss could translate into damages.’ ”
Undisclosed Opinion
Addressing prejudice, the justice reasoned:
“Shashi contends there is no prejudice to Defendants arising from Ackerman’s undisclosed testimony that they caused $1.98 billion in losses. To the contrary, there was no other evidence supporting this component of damages in the jury’s verdict, which totaled $1.3 billion between Shashi, Rajesh, and Chetan’s respective shares of the real estate partnership….Further,…Rajesh and Chetan’s compensatory damages relating to the real estate partnership included their respective partnership shares of this improperly offered figure.”
Saying in a footnote that “[t]he record…does not indicate whether prejudgment interest was calculated on portions of the $1.98 billion alleged investment gains awarded to Shashi, Rajesh, and Chetan,” Weingart declared:
“The awards of damages to Shashi, Chetan, and Rajesh relating to the real estate partnership are vacated and the matter is remanded for a new trial as to such damages unless Shashi, Rajesh, and/or Chetan timely file consents in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 8.264(d) to the following reductions: (1) Shashi’s economic damages from $1,798,846,000 to $808,846,000; (2) Rajesh’s economic damages relating to the real estate partnership from $359,769,200 to $161,769,200; and (3) Chetan’s economic damages relating to the real estate partnership from $233,849,980 to $105,149,980.”
The opinion leaves in place the punitive damages awards unless “any of them opts for a new trial on damages related to the real estate partnership,” in which case “that individual’s…award must be vacated.”
The case is Jogani v. Jogani, 2026 S.O.S. 507.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company