Quadri v. Alkayali CA4/3
Ten years ago the trial court ruled that Akram and Fatma Quadri, not Ahmad Alkayali, owned all the stock in NeoCell corporation. This court affirmed that decision in an unpublished decision. (See Quadri v. Alkayali (Mar. 9, 2011, G042758) [nonpub. opn.] (Quadri-1).) In 2016, however, plaintiff Alkayali requested the trial court set aside the verdict on the grounds of extrinsic fraud. Alkayali’s theory was that he had found new evidence showing he was the controlling shareholder of NeoCell – three previously uncalled witnesses and the supposed malingering of a fourth, who did not testify because of ill health. The trial court denied the request and we now affirm. What was conspicuously missing from the moving papers in the set aside motion, and indeed in the briefing on this appeal, is a demonstration of how the Quadris prevented Alkayali from calling any of the three new witnesses the first time. Moreover, the Quadris submitted evidence the fourth witness was genuinely ill.
Comments on Quadri v. Alkayali CA4/3