legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Eshaghian v. Ghodsi

Eshaghian v. Ghodsi
06:27:2006

Eshaghian v. Ghodsi


Filed 6/26/06 Eshaghian v. Ghodsi CA2/1


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS






California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.








IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION ONE










YAHYA ESHAGHIAN et al.,


Plaintiffs and Respondents,


v.


MOUSA GHODSI et al.,


Defendants and Appellants.



B180813


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. BC188545)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victor H. Person, Judge. Affirmed.


Benedon & Serlin, Douglas G. Benedon and Gerald M. Serlin for Defendants and Appellants.


Law Offices of Robert Scott Shtofman, Robert Scott Shtofman and Richard Sullivan for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


_________________________________


A father and his son won an $8 million verdict against three men who had attacked them. The defendants' motions for a new trial were denied and they appealed. We conditionally reversed, finding the trial court had applied the wrong standard in assessing the new trial motions. On remand, the trial court promptly set the matter for a new hearing, only to be greeted with a peremptory challenge from one of the defendants. More than a year later, after the defendants had done nothing to have their new trial motions heard by the judge to whom the case was reassigned, the plaintiffs sought and obtained entry of an amended judgment for the $8 million awarded by the jury (on the ground that the time within which the new trial motions could be heard had expired). The defendants appeal, claiming the time had not yet begun to run on their new trial motions and that the damages awarded to the plaintiffs are excessive. We disagree and affirm the judgment.


FACTS


A.


Mousa Ghodsi, the owner of a garment district store, became enraged when a customer returned some shirts because she could buy them for less money at a store owned by Yahya Eshaghian. After the customer left, Mousa (accompanied by his son, Peyman Ghodsi, and by Babak Nehorai, the owner of yet another store) ran to Yahya's store. Mousa swore at Yahya and accused him of â€





Description A decision regarding damages and motion for a new trial in the matter as to a variety of tort theories, including assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale