Mirrafati v. Anari CA4/3
Defendants Fatemeh Anari and Reza Danayan appeal from a judgment against them in favor of plaintiff Sid Mirrafati. Anari and Danayan argue Mirrafati failed to provide substantial evidence in support of the specific allegations raised in his complaint. They also claim the trial court erred by admitting certain text messages into evidence and awarding prejudgment interest. For the reasons stated below, we disagree and affirm the judgment.
I
FACTS
A. Mirrafati’s Allegations
In May 2014, Mirrafati filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) against his second cousin, Anari, Anari’s husband, Danayan, and Anari’s sister, Mojan Anari. Mirrafati alleged he “entered into a written broker agreement” with Anari and Danayan “whereby [Mirrafati] agreed to furnish . . . $130,000 in funding [as a] down payment to acquire real property in Toronto, Canada.” Mirrafati also alleged “[i]n exchange for locating an acceptable property and facilitating the purchase on [Mirraf
Comments on Mirrafati v. Anari CA4/3