Rahul Ravipudi

Ravipudi’s career focuses on handling catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases involving commercial vehicles, pedestrians, industrial and construction accidents and dangerous conditions on public and private property. He also represents consumers in class actions against businesses allegedly involved in unfair and illegal practices.

His latest win was a $160.5 million jury verdict in April for a man who suffered a traumatic brain injury from a beating by security personnel at a nightclub in Las Vegas’ Cosmopolitan hotel. Moradi v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, A-14-698824-C (Clark Dist. Nev., filed April 4, 2014).

“It was a hard fought case,” Ravipudi said. The trial took two months. “There were 12 lawyers on the other side. They disputed everything, they didn’t offer any money [to settle] and they felt like they were winning the whole time.”

Ravipudi’s client, David Moradi, a successful New York hedge fund owner, was at the Marquee Nightclub in the hotel entertaining and socializing with friends. When he attempted to leave, a manager and security personnel stopped him, claiming he had not paid his bill — despite evidence that he had signed a credit card statement, which Ravipudi would use at trial. Club employees beat Moradi and held him against his will. As a result, he suffered a traumatic brain injury that caused him to lose his billion-dollar hedge fund.

“My client testified, but his TBI left him with permanent memory deficits so that he could no longer run his fund,” Ravipudi said. “We had the credit card statements with signature, but the general manager testified that he wasn’t satisfied with the signature. We showed that no such discussion took place.”

Throughout the litigation, the defendants disputed liability and damages, which were particularly complex because of Moradi’s substantial loss of earnings capacity claim, Ravipudi said. Jurors, however, awarded Moradi $160.5 million for past and future wages. Following the punitive damages trial, but before the jury announced its $49 million punitives verdict, the parties settled that part of the case for a confidential amount.

“It was a righteous case and we outlawyered them,” Ravipudi said. “We are thorough, diligent, innovative and we use the best trial technology. The other side had significant resources to put against us, so we had no choice but to outlawyer them. Even when the judge informed the defense that the jury was coming back, they remained confident. Then there was silence.”

— John Roemer