Judge rejects defendant's claim that she's racist toward Asians

A Los Angeles County judge rejected a defendant’s accusations of judicial misconduct and racism in a breach-of-contract case with billions of dollars at stake, and referred the motion for her disqualification to the supervising judge for assignment of a judicial officer to make a determination.

Judge Susan Bryant-Deason filed her response on Friday as the jury was deliberating in the 20-year-old litigation among five brothers. The jurors on Monday ruled against the defendant, who sought to disqualify the judge.

The verdict means billions of dollars in property and cash for his client, according to the plaintiff’s attorney, Steven R. Friedman, though the amount has not been confirmed. But the motion for Bryant-Deason’s disqualification is pending. The jurors also ruled in favor of two other brothers, who were cross-complainants.

“I specifically deny that I am biased or prejudiced for or against any party to this proceeding or their counsel,” Judge Susan Bryant-Deason wrote in response to a motion by Rick L. Richmond of Larson LLP to disqualify her. Richmond declined to comment on Monday.

“I deny having or exhibiting any racial animus toward any party or their counsel. I further deny that I am unable to act fairly and impartially in this proceeding or that I have prejudged the issues in this case,” the judge wrote. “I have no personal interest in this proceeding and know of no reason why I cannot be fair and impartial. I do not believe my recusal would serve the interests of justice. I know of no facts or circumstances that would require my disqualification or recusal in this case.”

The case stems from a long-running dispute between five brothers over the ownership of hundreds of apartments in Southern California as well as the family’s global diamond business.

The jurors on Monday awarded the plaintiff, Shashikant “Shashi” Jogani 50% of the real estate empire at issue, valued at $5 billion to $6 billion, Steven R. Friedman said. They also awarded Shashi nearly $1.8 billion in cash and found the defendant engaged in malice, fraud and oppression, so there will be a punitive phase, he continued.

Defendant Haresh Jogani’s motion to disqualify Bryant-Deason threatens to derail a case that has had numerous trials, dismissals and appeals since it was filed in 2003. At least four other trial court judges have presided over the case, and 18 appellate matters have surfaced from this and related matters, Bryant-Deason wrote in her filing. Jogani v. Jogani et al., BC290553 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 18, 2003).

On behalf of his client, Richmond moved to disqualify Bryant-Deason late in the proceedings, just after he had concluded his closing arguments following five months of trial, and before the plaintiffs’ and cross-complainants’ attorneys were to start their rebuttals. He accused Bryant-Deason of racial hostility toward potential jurors and his colleagues of Asian descent, partisan attacks against defense witnesses, one-sided application of trial rules and improper ex parte communications with opposing counsel.

Richmond and his colleagues with Larson LLP submitted more than 600 pages of exhibits and declarations in support of the motion, which they filed hours before the jury began deliberations.

Jury selection involved eight jury panels with more than 400 people over a period of 10 days, Bryant-Deason wrote in her response to Richmond’s motion. She said her decision to exclude two potential jurors that Richmond mentioned was due to their abilities to communicate in English.

“Given the difficulties of two jurors identified by counsel being able to understand and respond to my questions, I deemed them ineligible to sit on this jury,” Bryant-Deason wrote. “I did not berate any jurors or throw papers in the air, and my decision to exclude these two potential jurors from the jury was based on a language barrier, not based on discriminatory animus.”

Bryant-Deason specifically denied attacking or mistreating Richmond’s colleagues, John S. Lee and Jina Yoon — who are of Asian descent. She also denied accusations of bias or prejudice against them.

The judge also rejected allegations that she verbally attacked defense witnesses and the defendant. While witness Shital Bhansali was testifying about people banging on his door, Bryant-Deason’s filing said she asked him if those people were in the courtroom in order to clarify “confusing” testimony and see that the evidence was “fully developed” under Evidence Code section 775.

“When I stated, ‘Don’t raise your hand, you’re as bad as your lawyer,’ it was because I observed Haresh Defendants’ counsel moving around and making a hand gesture,” Bryant-Deason continued. “I expressly deny any coordination with counsel for any party to this proceeding in asking Mr. Bhansali to identify persons present in the courtroom.”

Attorneys Steven R. Friedman and Michael E. Friedman, who represent plaintiff Shashikant “Shashi” Jogani, have said that the defendant’s team employed “some tactical maneuver” to thwart efforts to resolve the matter in a timely manner. Asked if Richmond’s filing was such an example, Steven nodded “yes.” He denied Richmond’s assertion of improper ex parte communication with the judge, saying that did not happen.

On Monday, Michael Friedman submitted thousands of pages of trial transcripts as part of what he described as a “very significant response” to Richmond’s allegations.

“I’ve done this for 42 years. I thought this judge’s behavior was exemplary, and she had the patience of Job. She granted them all kinds of things in order to bring the matter to a conclusion,” Steven said.

Plaintiff Shashi Jogani accused his brother, Haresh, of pushing him out of a real estate partnership worth billions of dollars. Shashi said he had an oral agreement with his four brothers to purchase properties in California following the collapse of the real estate market and the Northridge earthquake, both of which wiped him out financially.