Lawyers called judge racist to save face from loss, winning counsel says

A motion to disqualify a judge for alleged misconduct and racial hostility is yet another effort by a “vicious” defendant and his attorneys to evade justice and save their reputation, according to a plaintiff’s attorney who just won a verdict worth billions of dollars in Los Angeles trial court.

“As the record makes clear anyone who crosses this megalomaniacal defendant and moving party is subjected to vicious and boundless attacks using his billions of dollars of stolen funds,” Steven R. Friedman wrote in his opposition to a motion filed by Rick L. Richmond of Larson LLP to disqualify Judge Susan Bryant-Deason during closing arguments.

Friedman suggested the motion to disqualify the judge, with supporting declarations, was a way to protect Larson LLP’s reputation, as the firm had posted constant web updates saying it was defending the largest civil case in the country.

“But just as a multibillion-dollar win generates new business, a multibillion-dollar loss has the opposite effect,” Friedman wrote. “No one hires the firm or lawyer that just lost a $5 billion case. Clients hire the winner not the loser. Even now that the jury has rendered its verdict these declaring counsel claim to be the victors, even though the verdict was over $5 billion from the zero verdict they requested. To stave off this professional disaster, made public by their own PR efforts, the instant motion was filed as way to spin the impending massive loss.”

The case stems from a long-running dispute between five brothers over the ownership of thousands of apartments in Southern California as well as the family’s global diamond business. Shashikant “Shashi” Jogani, represented by Friedman, accused his brother, Haresh, Richmond’s client, of pushing him out of a real estate portfolio worth an estimated $1.3 to $1.7 billion. Shashi said he had an oral agreement with his four brothers to purchase properties in California following the collapse of the real estate market and the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

The jury ruled Feb. 26 in favor of Shashi and his other brothers, who were cross-complainants.

“After 21 years of the Haresh [team] delaying the first trial in this matter counsel waits until he completes his closing argument five months after the commencement of trial and the claimed prejudice to file the instant motion,” Friedman continued in his opposition. “To be perfectly clear, nowhere in the record of this trial is there any indication that anyone thought the court was racially biased or there were improper ex parte communications. The first notice of any such claim was made after the evidence closed and the defendant’s closing had concluded, and on the day when rebuttal closing and jury deliberation was to commence.”

There have been numerous trials, dismissals and appeals since Shashi sued Haresh in 2003. At least four other trial court judges have presided over the case. Eighteen appellate matters have surfaced from this and related matters. Trial began in September. On Haresh’s behalf, Richmond moved to disqualify the judge, claiming she exhibited racism toward people of Asian background, particularly prospective jurors, a defense witness and his co-counsel, John S. Lee.

Friedman and his son, Michael E. Friedman of Friedman2 LLP, filed their opposition after the jury awarded his client, Shashi and three of his brothers what the attorneys estimated was more than $7 billion in cash and property.

Should the motion to disqualify the judge be granted, it could impact the decision, according to Lawrence C. Ecoff, who represents a cross-complainant. The motion has been assigned to Orange County Superior Court Judge Cheri T. Pham. Jogani v. Jogani et al., BC290553 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 18, 2003).

Friedman’s strongly worded filing rejected Haresh Jogani’s claims that Bryant-Deason engaged in judicial misconduct including racism and improper ex parte communications with plaintiff’s counsel. The document also attacked the defense’s conduct over the five-month jury trial.

It said that Bryant-Deason seated five Asian-American jurors and alternates after 10 days of voir dire in which 400 potential jurors were vetted. It stated that Bryant-Deason went to great lengths to accommodate defense attorney Lee when he tested positive for COVID-19 three months into the trial and could not attend court. Lee is of Asian descent, and claimed in his declaration that Bryant-Deason subjected him to “degrading and openly hostile treatment.”

“Deceptively Mr. Lee does not disclose that this purportedly ‘prejudiced’ judge allowed a live camera to show each day’s court proceedings by video streamed to Mr. Lee. This very unusual variation from the long-standing court rule against such transmissions was an accommodation to Mr. Lee and Mr. Lee alone. California Rules of Court Rule 1.150,” Friedman wrote.

“Importantly Judge Bryant-Deason ordered and repeatedly made sure Mr. Lee could hear and see the trial proceedings and participate remotely without any requirement of a declaration, motion, doctors’ note that Mr. Lee was in fact sick or that he alone [was] viewing the trial (rather than the team at his firm). Yet this ‘prejudiced’ judge literally acted upon her expectation that Mr. Lee, as a presumed honorable member of the bar, would act properly,” Friedman continued.

The Friedmans began to represent Shashi in January 2014. They said that Haresh – who stood to lose vast sums of money – employed tactical maneuvers over the years to prevent resolution. Such maneuvers included lucrative “bounties and bonuses” for attorneys who could delay, obstruct or scuttle Shashi’s case, according to the Friedmans’ filings. Michael Friedman included a declaration by Haresh’s former counsel at Scheper Kim and Harris purporting to show that Haresh offered more than $2 million for a motion or writ petition that leads to the dismissal of the complaint.

“This sort of incentive for attorneys to file motions to delay the case makes sense when viewed in the context that Haresh is able to steal $2.6 million per week for every week of delay. In the case of that motion to dismiss, it succeeded in delaying the case more than five years, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars of benefit to Haresh,” Michael Friedman wrote.