Shahidi v. Perfint Healthcare Corp. USA CA6

Filed 8/10/22 Shahidi v. Perfint Healthcare Corp. USA CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RAMIN SHAHIDI, H047045 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 2012-1-CV-226639)

v.

PERFINT HEALTHCARE CORPORATION USA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff was awarded punitive damages in this civil action. Defendants’ sole contention on appeal is that the record lacks evidence of their financial condition to support the award. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND 1 In 2012, Ramin Shahidi sued Perfint Healthcare Corporation USA, Perfint Healthcare PVT. LTD. (a foreign company), and Nandakumar Subburaman (the companies’ chief executive officer) to recover approximately $150,000 in unpaid consulting fees for work performed advising defendants on how to develop a surgical software and robotics company. The complaint contained causes of action for reasonable value of services rendered, open book account, intentional misrepresentation, and

We grant plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the trial court’s October 16, 1

2018, March 27, 2019, and April 2, 2019, minute orders in this matter. We take judicial notice of the underlying complaint on our own motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)

negligent misrepresentation, and also sought punitive damages. The parties appeared through counsel at a trial setting conference in October 2018. Jury trial was set to begin on April 2, 2019, with a settlement conference scheduled for March 27, 2019. Plaintiff served defendants on March 13, 2019 with a notice to appear at trial with documents, including “[a]ll annual financial statements, ledgers, [and] tax returns for each individual, and all Perfint entities.” Plaintiff and his attorney appeared for the March 27 settlement conference; neither defendants nor their counsel appeared, for which an order to show cause issued. The matter did not settle. Plaintiff and his attorney appeared for trial on April 2. Defendant Subburaman did not attend the trial, and all defendants appeared only by counsel. The case proceeded to a court trial in their absence. As no party arranged for a court reporter, the trial was conducted without one. According to the court’s minutes, plaintiff testified for nearly two hours, and was examined both by defendants’ counsel and the court. Several of plaintiff’s exhibits were admitted in evidence. Defendants presented no evidence. The matter was argued, and the court announced its decision from the bench. Plaintiff prevailed on all causes of action. He was awarded $152,729.41 for services rendered, plus pre-and post-judgment interest. The court awarded punitive damages in the amount of $150,000 against defendant Subburaman personally and individually, and an additional $150,000 against the entity defendants. In its written judgment, the court found that defendant Subburaman “has the ability to pay” the punitive damages award “given his salary and net worth of the companies.” The court found that plaintiff had served defendants with a notice to appear at trial with financial documents, and that defendants’ failure to comply with the demand was without justification. The court found that defendants had “tak[en] advantage of Plaintiff Dr. Shahidi’s brilliance and reputation, and his trusting the Defendants, in falsely promising Plaintiff that he would be paid for [his] time and efforts.” Judgment was entered accordingly. 2