{"id":297,"date":"2026-02-24T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-24T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=297"},"modified":"2026-02-24T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-24T12:00:00","slug":"jogani-v-jogani-b338590-real-estate-partnership-verdict-undisclosed-expert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=297","title":{"rendered":"Jogani v. Jogani \u2014 $6.85 Billion Verdict in Brothers’ Real-Estate Partnership Suit Conditionally Affirmed; Lost-Profits Expert Testimony Excluded"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Jogani v. Jogani<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-24<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B338590<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Partnership Disputes, Discovery Sanctions, Expert Disclosure, Hearsay, Joint Representation, Punitive Damages<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

About 50 years ago, four Jogani brothers (Haresh, Shailesh, Rajesh, and Chetan) orally agreed to partner in a global diamond business. In 1995, they orally agreed to bring in a fifth brother, Shashikant (‘Shashi’) Jogani, to invest in and grow Shashi’s existing real estate portfolio, forming a separate real-estate partnership. Years later, Haresh denied that either partnership existed and claimed all assets were his alone.<\/p>\n

Shashi sued in 2003 for his rightful share of the real-estate partnership. Rajesh and Chetan later cross-complained for their shares of both partnerships. After a five-month jury trial in 2024, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Shashi, Rajesh, and Chetan. The court entered judgment with declaratory relief (each brother’s partnership share), compensatory and punitive damages, and prejudgment interest totaling approximately $6.85 billion against Haresh and the partnership entities.<\/p>\n

The defendants appealed seven discrete issues, mostly evidentiary. They challenged rulings on (1) sanctions for failure to produce records, (2) hearsay testimony from third-party witnesses, (3) Gujarati-to-English translations of recorded meetings, (4) testimony from an attorney who formerly jointly represented Shashi and Haresh, (5) an undisclosed expert opinion on lost profits, (6) a special jury instruction on the statute of limitations, and (7) refusal to give an offset instruction.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal rejected six of the seven challenges. It found no error in the discovery sanctions, the third-party-witness hearsay rulings, the admission of the Gujarati translations, the testimony from the formerly-jointly-representing attorney, the special instruction on the statute of limitations for the cross-claims, or the refusal to give an offset instruction.<\/p>\n

The court agreed with one challenge: Shashi’s damages expert testified to an opinion not disclosed before trial \u2014 that real-estate-partnership investments sold at a loss in 2008 would have appreciated to $1.98 billion if Haresh had not ‘panicked’ and sold them at a $445 million loss. That undisclosed-opinion testimony violated California’s expert-disclosure rules and should have been excluded. The court conditionally affirmed the judgment but ordered a remittitur to remove the lost-profits component tied to the undisclosed expert opinion.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n