Motion for Compliance or Status in SHIRAZ DHANANI ON BEHALF OF NISHI INVESTMENTS INC.vsDHANANI, NISHA| Trellis.Law

On June 26, 2017 a Party Statement was filed involving a dispute between Shiraz Dhanani On Behalf Of Nishi Investments Inc, and Nisha Dhanani, in the District Court of Orange County.

Preview
Filing # 61292761 E-Filed 09/04/2017 05:37:45 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHIRAZ DHANANI individually, Case No.: 2017-CA-005820-O
and on behalf of NISHI INVESTMENTS, INC.
Plaintiff,

v.
NISHA DHANANI,
Defendant
__________________________/

SHIRAZ DHANANI individually, Case No.: 2017-CA-005818-O
and on behalf of DHANANI LLC.
Plaintiff,

v.
NISHA DHANANI,
Defendant
__________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT1

1. Factual Statement of the Case

SHIRAZ DHANANI and NISHA DHANANI (“the parties”) were married on

or about August 12, 1993. During their marriage, the parties formed several

businesses including NISHI INVESTMENTS, INC. and DHANANI LLC (“the

businesses”). The parties are both corporate officers and fiduciaries of the

businesses. The businesses are also marital property in nature. The two businesses

1
Defense counsel has had limited availability.On or about August 1, 2017 Defense counsel fileda notice of
unavailability stating counsel was unavailable July 31, 2017 through August 8, 2017, August 22, 2017 through August
25, 2017 and August 30, 2017 through September 4, 2017. In between August 8, 2017 and August 22, 2017, the
parties had discussed abating these proceedings, but have not been able to come to complete terms on the language in
a joint stipulation addressing various issues between the parties.

1
which are subject to these lawsuits operate three daycare centers. Both businesses

have an operating account held by Chase Bank. Both businesses also have an

operating account held by BB&T. On or about June 23, 2017, Defendant, NISHA

DHANANI removed about $339,569.91 from personal bank accounts held by the

parties, and by the various businesses created by the parties during their marriage.

These monies taken also included money which were held in the BB&T and Chase

operating accounts for the two businesses subject to these lawsuits.

On or about June 23, 2017, Defendant, NISHA DHANANI also removed

Plaintiff, SHIRAZ DHANANI from the Chase operating accounts held by the

businesses. Defendant, NISHA DHANANI further attempted to remove Plaintiff,

SHIRAZ DHANANI from the BB&T operating accounts held by the businesses,

however Plaintiff, SHIRAZ DHANANI was able to stop the actions related to the

BB&T accounts.

Plaintiff filed these lawsuits, as well as a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage,

Orange County Case Number 2017-DR-8844 (“the divorce case”) on or about June

27, 2017. The businesses are still operating. Plaintiff, SHIRAZ DHANANI has

reason to believe Defendant, NISHA DHANANI is still failing to deposit certain

cash revenue into the Chase accounts held by the businesses. On or about August

14, 2017 the parties entered into an agreed order in the divorce case which addressed

2
the funds taken by Defendant, NISHA DHANANI on June 23, 2017. 2

2. Pleading Issues

A. Service of Process

A motion to dismiss has been filed by the Defendant. Service of Process issues

have not been alleged.

B. Venue, Joinder of Additional Parties

A motion to dismiss has been filed by the Defendant. The Defendant has

alleged the Plaintiff failed has to name the corporations as Defendants.

C. Theories of Liability, Damages Claimed and Applicable Defenses

Plaintiff asserts the actions by Defendant, NISHA DHANANI were a breach

her fiduciary duty to the business and her business partner, the Plaintiff, SHIRAZ

DHANANI. Plaintiff also alleges any future funds misappropriated from the

businesses are a breach of fiduciary duty to the business and her business partner,

the Plaintiff, SHIRAZ DHANANI. Defendant, NISHA DHANANI has filed a

motion to dismiss attaching a document in which she alleges constitutes a post-

nuptial agreement, which by operation of law transferred the business to the

Defendant on June 21, 2017. In essence, Defendant, NISHA DHANANI is alleging

2
The parties have been working on expanding this order and turning into a joint stipulation and agreed upon order
governing the parties businesses and various accounts during the pendency of the divorce. Due to language not
being agreed to as of yet, this order has not been entered in the divorce case.

3
she cannot steal something which is hers alone.

3. The Identify and Number of any Motions to Dismiss or Other
Preliminary or Pre-Discovery Motions Which Have Been Filed and the Time
Period in Which They Shall be Filed, Briefed and Argued.

Defendant, NISHA DHANANI filed a Motion to Dismiss on or about

August 12, 2017.

4. A Discovery Plan and Schedule Including the Length of the Discovery
Period, the Anticipated Number of Fact and Expert Depositions to be
Permitted and, as Appropriate, the Length and Sequence of Such Depositions.

Plaintiff asserts fact discovery should remain open until September 5, 2018.

The Plaintiff anticipate no more than 30 fact depositions for each side. A forensic

accounting expert may be necessary.

The length of any deposition should not exceed seven (7) hours per day, and

may be taken from day to day until completed.

5. Anticipated Areas of Any Expert Testimony, Timing for Identification
of Experts, Responses to Expert Discovery, and Exchange of Expert Reports.

An expert in the area of forensic accounting may be utilized.

6. An Estimate of the Volume of Documents and Computerized
Information Likely to be the Subject of Discovery from Parties and Non-
Parties and Whether There are Technological Means Which May Render
Document Discovery More Manageable at an Acceptable Cost.

4
At present, no discovery has been completed. The Plaintiff estimate that the

volume of documents will not be greater than ten banker’s boxes.

7. The Advisability of Using Special Mater(s) for Fact Finding, Mediation,
or Discovery Disputes or Such Other Matters as the Parties May Agree Upon.

The Plaintiff does not consent to have a Special Master resolve discovery
issues/disputes.

8. The Time Period After the Close of Discovery Within Which Post-
Discovery Dispositive Motions Shall be Filed, Briefed and Argued and a
Tentative Schedule for Such Activities.

The deadline for filing dispositive motions should be March 30, 2019.

9. The Possibility of Settlement and the Timing of Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Including the Selection of a Mediator(s) or Arbitrator(s).

The Plaintiff agrees to mediate this matter before trial.

10. Whether or Not a Party or Parties Desire to use Technologically
Advanced Methods of the Following:

(A) Fairness Issues, Including But Not Limited To Use of Such
Capabilities by Some But Not All of the Parties and/or by Parties Whose
Resources Permit or Require Variations in the Use of Such Capabilities;

The need is not anticipated.

(B) Issues Related to Compatibility of Court and Party Facilities and
Equipment;

Not applicable.

(C) Issues Related to the Use of Demonstrative Exhibits and any
Balancing of Relevance and Potential Prejudice Which May Need to Occur in
Connection With Such Exhibits;

None.
5
(D) Such Other Issues Related to the Use of the Court’s and Parties’
Special Technological Facilities as May Be Raised by any Party or the Court
or its Technological Advisor, Given the Nature of the Case and the Resources
of the Parties.

None anticipated.

11. A Good Faith Estimate by Counsel for Each Party Based Upon
Consultation With all of the Parties of the Costs Each Party is Likely to Incur
in Pursuing the Litigation Through Trial Court Adjudication;

$50,000 - $75,000 per party.

12. A Preliminary Listing of the Principal Legal and Factual Issues Which
Counsel Believe Will Need to be Decided in the Case;

A. Whether the Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the businesses.
B. Whether the Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, SHIRAZ
DHANANI.
C. Whether the Defendant breached this fiduciary duty.
D. If this duty was breached, then what are the damages.
E. Whether the letter which is alleged to be a post-nuptial agreement is in
fact a valid post-nuptial agreement/contract.

13. A Preliminary Listing of any Legal Principals and Facts that are not in
Dispute;

The parties do not agree on any factual issues at this time.

14. A Good Faith Estimate by Counsel for each Party of the Length of Time
to Try the Case;

The Plaintiff estimates that trial of this matter will take between 2-3

days.

15. Whether a Demand for Jury Trial has been made;

6
A trial by jury has been demanded.

16. The deadline for filing motions in limine;

The parties agree that the deadline for filing motions in limine shall be

two (2) weeks prior to the commencement of trial.

17. The track to which the Case Shall be Assigned;

The Plaintiff asserts this matter should be on the Business Standard track with

a target trial date within 24 months of the complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff

believes June of 2019 is an appropriate trial time.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the
parties via the Florida e-filing portal on this 4 day of September, 2017.

/s/ Alec L. Weber___________
Alec L. Weber, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 84781
Malik Law, P.A.
1061 Maitland Center Commons Blvd.
Maitland, Florida 32751
P: (407) 500-1000
F: (407) 792-6462
Primary Email: aweber@imaliklaw.com

Case Info

Judge

Diana M. Tennis Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 04, 2017

Case Filing Date

June 26, 2017

County

Status

Closed

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Statement: SHIRAZ DHANANI ON BEHALF OF NISHI INVESTMENTS INC.vsDHANANI, NISHA

Preview

Case Info

Parties