## No. 14-14-00855-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS Adeel Zaidi, A. K. Chagla, Prestige Consulting, Inc., and Apex Katy Physicians – TMG, L.L.C., Appellants,
v. Pankaj K. Shah and Apex Katy Physicians, LLC, Appellees. On Appeal from the 61st District Court, Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-02578
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ! ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ! Douglas R. Little State Bar No. 12416600 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77002 713.275.2069 Robin L. Harrison State Bar No. 09120700 Campbell, Harrison & Dagley L.L.P. 909 Fannin Street, 40th Floor Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 752-2332 (713) 752-2330 Facsimile June 22, 2015 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ACCEPTED 14-14-00855-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/22/2015 12:55:53 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK- i - TABLE OF CONTEN TS I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... iii R E C O R D A

N D P A R T Y R E F E R E N C E S
....... ....... ....... ....... .... v STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 R E B U T T A L S T A T E M E N T
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 A R G U M E N T A

N D A U T H O R I T I E S
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 9 1. T he Co urt shoul d re ve rs e and re m an d this ca se fo r a newtr ia l be ca use the trial cou rt’ s conclusio n of l awthat Za idi comm itted perj ury is flaw ed in i ts o ve r- br ea dth a nd n ot b as ed upo n le ga lly suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce , a nd the c ourt’ s c onse que nt f ind ing s as t o th e re la tiv e cr ed ibi lity of the parties is against the great wei ght and p reponderance of the e vidence an d c onst itu te s a n a

buse of dis cr et ion
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A
. T he tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in fa ili ng to spec if

y the sta te m en t( s) it

f ound to be perj ury , and there wa s no fabrication of evidence.
. . . . . 9 B. Cr ed ibi lity

de te rm ina tio ns are the pr ovi nc e of the tr ia l c ourt. 10 2. A ppe llants a re pr ev en te d f ro m a de qua te ly

m ak in g the ir

appe al to thi s Co urt bec au se the tr ia l cour t’ s gros s aw ar d of dam ag es is ne ith er ti ed to spe ci fi c ca

use s of a ct ionnor br oke n do w n in to s pe ci fi c ite m s of da m ag e aw arded, and there is no evidence, or alternatively insufficient evidence, to s uppo rt

one or m or e of th e ca use s of a ct ionor

it em s of da m ag e p l e a d e d
. . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 12 3. The tr ial court’ s award of aggregate dam ages against Appellants based uponm ult ipl e al le ge d da m ag es e le m en ts and i ts f ai lur e to a ttr ibu te dam ages to or am ong th e m ultip le causes of action alleged by Appellees i s r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 14 A
. A n a w ar d ina ny a m ount f or r ec over y of “ los t” a cc ount s r e c e i v ab l e i s i m

p r o p e r . ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 17- i i - B. A n a w ar d ba se d up on a c ont ing en t a sse rt ed

li ab ili ty i s i m p r o p e r . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 18 C. An aw ard of other dam ages to the Landlord is im proper . . . 19 D. Conclusio n as to these dam ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. N o da m ag es w er e pr oxi m at el y c au se d by

a ny m isr ep re se nta tio n by

a ny App el la nt . (App el la nt s’ Bri ef, 5 0– 54 .)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. App el le es r at if

ie d e ve ry thi ng o f w hic h th ey

c om pla in. ( A ppe llants ’ B r i e f , 5 4

– 5 5
. )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 23 6. Reim bursem ent for the sum s paid to settle w ith the Landlord investo rs e f f e c t s ad o ub l e r e c o v e ry. (Ap pe ll an ts ’ Bri ef, 5 6– 57 .)
. . . . . . . . . . 24 7. T he e xe m

plary da m ag es are exc es siv e ac ro ss the board
. ( A ppe llants ’ B r i e f , 5 7
. )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 24 8. N o m al ic iou s co nd uct of Z ai di o r Ch ag law as sho w n. ( A ppe llants ’ B r i e f , 5 7

– 5 9
. )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 25 9. A ppe lle es ’ f

ra ud and r el at ed

da m ag es a re not supp orte d by a ny le ga lly su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. (Ap pe ll an ts ’ Bri ef, 5 9– 67 .)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. A ppe llants c an not

be h el d li ab le f

or f ra udul en t i nduc em en t. ( A p p e l l a n t s ’ B r i e f

, 6 7
. )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 26 11 – 15
. Appellants stand on their Brie f on these issues
. . . . . . . . . . . 27 C O N C L U S I O N A

N D P RA Y E R
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 28 C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O M P L I A N C E..............
....... ....... ....... 29 C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E RV I C E
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 29- i ii - INDEX OF AUT HORITIES Cases Bunton v. B entley , 1 5 3 S
. W
. 3 d5 0 ( T e x . 2 0 0 4 ).........
....... ....... .... 22 Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel , 22 S
. W
. 3d 3 78 ( T ex . 200 0)
. . . . . . . . 15, 23 Eastern Tex. Ele c. Co. v . B aker , 254 S
. W
. 933 ( T ex . 192 3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16 H aase v . G laz ne r, 6 2 S
. W
. 3 d7 9 5 ( T e x . 2 0 0 1 )
....... ....... ....... ...... 27 H arr is C ount y v. Sm ith , 96 S
. W
. 3d 2 30 ( T ex . 200 2)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16, 22 H en dri ck s v . T horn ton , 973 S
. W
. 2d 3 48 ( T ex . App. –B ea um ont 1 9 9 8 , p e t
. d e n i e d )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 26 Ja ure guiv . J ones, 695 S
. W
. 2d 2 58 ( T ex . App. –S anA nto nio 1 9 8 5 , w r i tr e f

' dn . r . e . )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 21 Johnsto n v. Guiterrez , 77 S
. W
. 3d 8 98 ( T ex . App. —H oust on [ 1 4 t h D i s t
. ] 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t
. )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 16 Li fsh utz v . L ifs hut z , 61 S , W , 3d 5 11, 515 ( T ex . App. –S anA nto nio 2 0 0 1 , p e t
. d e n i e d )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 21 Spi ritas v . R obi now itz , 544 S. W .2d 710 (Tex. Civ. App.–Dallas 1 9 7 6 , w r i tr e f

’ d , n . r . e . )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 18, 19 Sta te v . E ve rso le , 88 9 S .W .2d 41 8 (Te x. Ap p.– Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 1 9 9 4 , p e t
. d i s c . r e v . d e n . )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 10 Tagle v . G alv an , 155 S
. W
. 3d 5 10 ( T ex . App. —S anA nto nio 200 4, n o p e t
. )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 16 W hi ta ker v. Ros e, 218 S. W
. 3d 2 16, 224 ( T ex . App. —H oust on [ 1 4 t h D i s t
. ] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t
. )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 16, 22- iv -

Statutes and Rules T EX . R. A PP . P
. 6 1
. 1 ( b )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 14-vRECORD AND PARTY REFERENCES 1. “ CR ” re fe rs to the or igi na l Cle rk ’ s R ec or d f ile d inone dig ita l vo lum e on D ec em be r 5, 201 4. 2. “ Su pp C R” is the P erry m an D ep osi tio n a dm itt ed int o e vid en ce . “ Su

pp CR , ” “ Su pp CR 2,” “ Su

pp C R 3 , ” an d S upp CR

4" w er e fi le d c oll ec tiv el y a s on e Su ppl em en ta l C le rk ’ s R ec or d by th e H ar ri s C ounty

D istri ct Cl er k onMay 4, 201 5.

“ RR ” re fe rs to the Re porte r’ s Re co rd f ile d innin e dig ita l vo lum es on D ec em be r 17, 2014
. Refe rences to individ u al v olum es will be designated “ 1RR,” “ 2RR,” etc. V olu m es 1 – 5 c ont ai n th e te sti m ony a dduc ed on M ar ch17 –

20, 201 4. V olu m es 6 – 9 c ont ai n th e pa rt ie s’ E xhi bit s. 3. In div idu al pa rt ie s w ill be ide nti fi ed by the ir la st na m es. App ellant Pr es tig e Con sul tin g, In c. , w hic h di d bu sin es s a s T ur n- A ro und Mana ge m en t G ro up,
w ill be i d e n t i f

i e d a s “ T M G
. ” A p p e l l a n t A p e x K a t y P h y s i c i a n s
– T M G , L L C, the ge ne ra l partne r of

the H ospi ta l, w ill be ide nti fi ed a s “ Ape x TMG. ” T he H ospi ta l, Apex L ong Term

Ac ute Care – Ka ty , L. P. , w hich havin g gon e through a com pleted bankrupt cy

case wa s not in fac t a party at the tim e of trial (see 9RR D. Exs. 62, 65),
w ill be ide nti fi ed as the “ H ospi ta l. ” A ppe lle e A pe x K aty Ph y sic ia ns, L L C, w ill be id en ti fie d a s t he “ Lan dl or d.”No. 14-14-008 55-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE FO URT EENT H JU DI CIA L D IST RICT

AT HOUSTON , TEXA S
Ade el Zaid i, A. K. Cha gl a, Pres ti ge Co ns ul ti ng , Inc ., an d Ape x K aty

P hy sic ia ns –

T MG , L
. L
. C. , Appe llants , v. Panka j K
. S ha h a nd Ape x K aty P hy sic ia ns, L L C, Appe lle es . On Appeal from

the 61st District Court, H arris C ount y , T exas T ri al Co urt C au se N o. 200 9- 0257 8
REP LY BRIE F O F A PP ELLA NTS
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH SUPREME JUDIC IAL DISTRICT: A ppe llants Z ai di, Ch ag la , T MG, an d Ape x T MG r es pond to the Br ie f of Appellees in this Reply Brief
. Appellants reitera te t heir challeng e to all of the trial
co urt’ s fi ndi ngs an d co nc lus ion s as unsu ppor te d a nd i nsup porta

ble , e ith er by le ga lly or factually sufficient evidence. Appellants also reitera te t heir challeng e to the trial court’ s award o f dam ages as n ot having been supp orted by the court’ s finding s of fac t
an d conc lus ion s of law
. A ppe llants se ek a re ve rs al of the Judg m en t and a re m an d f or
a n ew tr ia l.-2- STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT T he a rg um en t i n Appe lle es ’ Br ie f de m onstra tes th e truthof Appe llants ’
co nte nti on tha t this c as e inv olv ed ar ea l bu sin es s de al inv olv ing num er ous peopl e
w ho w er e tr

y ing to ope n a nd p ro fi ta

bly ope ra te alon g- te rm

a cu te c ar e hosp ita l i n K aty , T ex as – the H ospi ta l. N o one chara ct er iz ed the de al as f ra udul en t or

m al ic iou s at the ti m e, or ev en un ti l 2010, w he n S ha h a nd the L an dlo rd inv en te d – n ot

“ discovered” – the story

told in Appellees’ Brief

. A ppe lle es w ill ta ke a ny

pos iti on r equir ed , e ve n il log ic al one s, to p r es er ve the $50, 617, 101. 50 w indfal l Ju dg m en t the y r ec ei ve d f

ro m the tr ia l c ourt. U nde r the se ci rc um stanc es , Appe llants m ai nta in tha t the Co urt w oul d be ne fi t fr om or al a rg um en t, and Appellants believe that such argum ent will further the interests of j ustice. RE BUT TA L T O A PPE LL EE S’ INTRODUCTION AND STAT EMENT OF FACTS Not surprisingly , Appellees’ argum ent rem ains based upo n the invented
cana rd tha t the H ospi ta l de al inv olv ing a ll the se pa rt ie s and m an y m or e w as af

ra ud from the beginni ng, designed by Za idi and his m inion s to “ divert m ost of the m oney to h im se lf

. ” (Appe lle es ’ Br ie f, 1.) The st or y is ar tf ull y pr es en te d, but

it is sti ll artifice
. Appellees’ s t a t e m e nt l a t e r o n pa ge o ne o f

t he i r b r i e f b e l i e s t he e nt i re argum ent: “Nowif the T enant [the H ospit al] had obtained a l o n g -t er m acute care-3-

license as quickly

as planned, the business cou ld have been a suc ce s s . . .. ” T hat sim ply doe s not sound lik e fr au d. Fr au ds ar e de sig ne d to appe ar as though they

are
re al , to se duc e the inn oc en t i nve sto rs , but neve r to pr ovi de a ny one oth er than th e
m al ef ac tor s wi th a chanc e to suc ce ed
. T he H ospi ta l d ea l w as sup pose d to suc ce ed , it co uld ha ve suc ce ed ed , a nd i t a lm ost did suc ce ed
. A s App el la nts ha ve ins ist ed a ll along, this case is about a Hospital that failed principally because of a

governm ental li cen si ng de la y . N otw ith standi ng the ir

a dm iss iontha t the H ospit al deal c oul d ha ve succeeded, Appellees cr eated and have fostered a contrary story worthy of a w hitecollar cr im e docudram a, and they indeed convin ced the trial j udge that it was m ore docum entary

than dram a. But this Court cannot su stain their $50 + m illion aw ard
w ith out ind ulg ing Appe lle es ’ le ap s of f ai th, by w hic h th ey

gl os s over

ala ck of subs ta nti ve e vid en ce sup portin g th ei r sto ry a nd u tte rl y

dis re ga rd

oth er sub stanti ve
ev ide nc e tha t doe s not supp ort it, on m an y of the ir gr ound s of lia bil ity , c au sa tio n, a nd da m ag es . A ppe llants a re c er

ta in tha t the ir

S ta te m en t of

F ac ts ( A ppe llants ’ Br ie f, 1–1 4) both f ai rl y an d ac cu ra te ly se t fo rth w ha t re al ly ha ppe ne d be tw ee n an d am ong al l the pa rt ie s to the H ospi ta l de al , a nd w ill onl y a ddr es s c er

ta in m at er ia l m iss ta te m en ts and
om iss ion s inAppe lle es ’ I ntr oduc tio n ( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 1–3 ) an d S ta te m en t of F ac ts (Appellees’ Brief

, 4–18).-4-

“ Wro ngf ul L ev erag e”: Z ai di’ s r ep re se nta tio ns h ad no e ff ec t onthi s. T he only wr ongful levera ge wa s Shah’ s: H e agre ed when he signed the M edistar Bi ndi ng Le tter of Intent in S eptem ber 2006 (D
. Ex. 4) that he w ould pay $40,000 in cash per U nit to pa rti ci pa te inthe r ea l e sta te f or the H ospi ta l. H e did

not
. I f he ha d, the Me tr oB an k lo ana nd the li enon the H ospi ta l pr ope rty w oul d ne ve r ha ve ha

ppe ne d.

“ O ve rc ha rg ing ”: T he c ont en tio n th at $1. 35 m ill ionin re al e sta te
co m m iss ion s w as pa id i s de lib erat ely f al se , and the re w as no e vid en ce , onl y insin uation, to sup port it. In this regar d, as in others w hen necessary , Ap pellees sim ply ign or e the undi sput ed ev ide nc e of Mr
. Pe rr ym an (C R 1 ) – w ho w as not aZ ai di
co nf idant – tha t Ap pe llants se t out in thei r br ie f (4 8–49 ): T he re w er e no c om m iss ion s p a i dt o a n yo n e o n t h e s a l e o f t h e Ho s p i t a l p r o p e rt y.

“ Ro bbe ry ”: F ir st, the ove rw he lm ing e vid en ce of a ll w ho t es tif

ie d – e xc ep t Sh aha t tri al , a s op pose d to c om m en ts h e ha d m ad e at

the ti m e – w as tha t the $700 , 000 tr an sf

er re d by chec k f

ro m the L an dlo rd

to A pe x T MG , a nd the n us ed by A pe x T MG , the ge ne ra l partne r of the H ospi ta l, fo r Hos pi ta l pu rp ose s, w as aloan. (Appe llants ’ Br ie f, 13, 23– 26, 56, 61. ) I n f ac t, the en tr

y of the $700 , 000 as a de bt o n the Hospital’ s book s and as an asset on the Landlo rd’ s book s, about which Appellees
co m pla in (e
. g. , A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 2) , is the pr ope r w ay to re fl ec t an in te rc om pa ny loan.-5-

L i k e w i s e , th e o v e r

wh e l m i n g e v i de nc e of

a ll w ho t es tif

ie d, thi s ti m e inc lud ing Shah at trial, wa s that every one knew that Medistar had unit s worth $2.8 m illion that it did not pa y c as h ou t of

poc ke t for ; Med ist ar , thr oughMr
. P er ry m an , a n in de pe nde nt
w itn es s, te sti fi ed

w ith out co ntr ad ic tio n that Me dis ta r ha d prov ide d servic es in lie u of cash for these units. ( Appellants’ Brief , 11, 29, 46.) A ppe lle es bli the ly

ski p a ll of the m om en tou s e ve nts of D ec em be r 22, 200 6 (Appe lle es ’ Br ie f, 5) , w he n a t the m ee tin g w ithMr
. H our an i, of Me dis ta r, S ha h to ok over the rea l estate investm ent for his own acc ount (Appellants’ Br ief, 6– 8). They fa il to a cknow le dge tha t the r ea son fo r thi s m ee tin g w as S ha h’ s f ai lur e to h av e pa id for his 125 un its. They igno re the fact that the only principals to the contract signed that nigh t we re Me distar and Shah. Zaidi s igned only as a witness, as Mr. Per rym an al so v er if ie d. S ha h w as no p as siv e inv es tor by a ny str et chof

the im ag ina tio n. In an attem

pt to su pport the gros sly insup portab le fra

ud and exem

plary dam ages against Mr. Chagla, who did noth ing but notarize o ne docum ent, Appellees
re pe at ed ly

c al l hi m Z ai di’ s “pa rtne r” (e
. g. , A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 3, 5) , a n a sse rt ionw hol ly
unsu ppor te d by e vid en ce , a nd a sse rt tha t he “ dr af te d th e le as e w ithMe dis ta r, ” ag ai n a deliberately

false statem ent. Mr . C hagla, ac ting as the clerk he wa s, only faxed Med is ta r a s am

pl e le as e fo r it s u se . (App el la nt s’ Bri ef, 5 9.) T o be f ai r, Appe lle es ge t the f

ac ts righ t occa sio na lly
. T he y a cknow le dge (Ap pe ll ees ’ Bri ef, 6 ) th at “ Sh ah als o i nv e s t edin th e Lan dl or d; Zaid i d id no t.” As-6-

Appellants noted (Appellants’ Brief , 2), no person wa s m ore invo lved in every aspect of the H ospi ta l de al than S hah. Z ai di, on the oth er ha nd, w as inv olv ed onl y sli ght ly
as a n owne r in the H ospi ta l de al a nd n ev er sto od to prof it m at er ia lly

pe rs ona lly

in an y
w ay oth er than a s apa rt

ow ne r of TMG, whi chha d th e co ntr ac t t o m an ag e the H ospi ta l’ s bu sin es s a nd w oul d pr of it onl y f ro m a ct ua l w ork. A ppe lle es ins inuat e tha t Z ai di a gr ee d th at ha d th e cl osi ng n ot o cc ur re d,

“ TMG would have lost m illion s.” (Appellees’ Brief , 7, citing 2RR 213: 16–2 3.) That testim ony a c t ua l l y consists of Z aidi stating that “ [the closing] c ould n’ t have happened
w ith out D r. S ha h’ s a nd o the r phy sic ia ns’ f unds a nd the ir

guarante es . ” A s Appe llants ha ve sa id ( A ppe llants ’ Br ie f, 12, 54) , it w as the doc tor s, inc lud ing S ha h, w ho w oul d have lost m illion s, not TMG , if the closing had not gone forw ard. That’ s why Shah
m ad e sur e tha t i t di d. A ppe l l e e s o v e r s t a t e t h e c o n f i d e n c e w i t h w h i c h M r . S c h u l t e t e s t i f i e dab o ut Za idi’s r epresentations before the closing. (Appellees’ Brief , 8.) Mr. Schulte agree d on cross that Zaidi wa s present principally on behalf of the Hospital, not the Landlo rd (3 RR 148 :12 –149 :6) , an d tha t Z ai di tol d him his pe opl e “ w er e on b oard ” w ithaloan, but never said t h at they

we re on board “ with getting a lien” (3RR 149:22– 150: 6). T his dis tin ct ionis pr ev al en t i n Z ai di’ s a dm itt ed ly f au lty m em or y of the e ve nts
. T he $70 0, 000 loan ( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 9–1 0) ha s be ena ddr es se d a bove a nd i n Ap p el l an t ’s Br i ef

(2 2

– 2 4 ). Th e a c c o u n t i n g fo r t h at l o an o n t h e t wo co m p an y’ s-7-

book s w as pr ope r. T he onl y e vid en ce c onc er

nin g th e use of

the funds c am e fr om Za idi, who testified without c ontradiction that every penny we nt t o Ho s pital ope ratio ns, ( 5R R 1 126: 6–23 ), a nd n ot f or T MG ’ s ow n pu rp ose s. Appellees’ ad hom inen attacks regarding the letter of credit and the w aiver of the landl or d’ s li en( A pp el le es ’ Brie f, 9–1 1) a re ar eh as h of the ir pr ior pos iti ons be lowa nd are a s i llo gic al an d fa ct ua lly unsu

ppor te d as the y

w er e the re . ( A ppe llants ’ Br ie f, 13, 21, 29– 30, 39, 43– 44, 46– 47. ) T he a m en dm en t to th e le tte r of c re dit did not voi d it , a nd the re sti ll is no evid en ce tha t any dr awa ga ins t i t w as e ve r at te m pte d. Sh ah ’ s kn ow le dge of the o ri gin al li enw ai ve r an d th e ex ec uti on o f the r ep la ce m en t
w ai ve r ha ve be ene xpl ai ne d a nd are not m eanin gf

ull y c ontra dic te d. Appe lle es ha ve
m ad e a very

big de al of

the “ ba ck da te d” w ai ve r tha t “ co nc ea le d th e da te , ” be ca use otherwise they

have absolutely n o ev i dence against Chagla. W e can r ead the date, despite the errant notary stam p, and w e suspect this Co u rt ca n as we ll. ( See A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 11. ) Appe llants have a lr ea dy sho w n th at

S ha h kn ewabout

the
w ai ve r fr om

the be gin nin g, an d he did not de ny thi s. S ha h e spe ci al ly

w an te d th e le tte r of c re dit , a nd h e unde rs too d th at the l an dlo rd

li enw ai ve r w as apr er equis ite (4 RR 2 1 0 : 9

– 2 1 6 : 1 1 )
. C a n o v e r $ 6
. 0 m i l l i o n i n e x e m

p l a ry d a m a g e s a g a i n s tC ha gla pr ope rl y be pr em ise d up on the not ar iz at io n of adoc um en t tha t i tse lf c au se d no dam age?-8-

W ith respect to allegedly

m issin g investo r funds (Appellees’ Brief , 13–14), there is no e vidence whatever that these funds are in fac t m issin g or we re a ccounted fo r inc or re ct ly
. A ppe lle es ’ as se rt ion s her e ar e pur e surm ise an d conj ec tur e. T he onl y evidence that did exist concerned Medistar, and consist ed of Shah’ s adm issio n that he alway s – and not m erely at trial – knewthat Medistar d i d n o t p ay ca sh and Mr. Pe rr ym an ’ s un co ntr ad ic te d te sti m ony tha t M ed ist ar

pr ovi de d se rv ic es ins te ad of c as h for those units
. Ther e wa s no e vidence from any source that the Appellants “ gave” those un its to Medist ar. As t o t h e “m ae l s t ro m ” o f l i t i g at i o n ag ai n s t Sh ah t h at Ap p el l ee s l ay at Za i d i ’s feet , two fact s ar e im

po rta nt to rem em

be r. F irs t , nothin g Z ai di t old

the inv es tor s in late 2009 could have caused any of t he dam ages Appellees su ed him for in this case. All t he act s an d o m is si on s co m pl ai ne d o f ha d l on g s in ce o ccu rred
. Se co nd , it is be y ond te lli ng tha t, e ve n w itha ll thi s kn ow le dge be fo re the m , not one of the se inv es tor s su ed

or e ve n bl am ed

Z ai di f or the ha rm ; e ach one blam ed S ha h a nd o nly Sh ah , a nd h e se ttl ed

w iththe m

f or his de fa ult s a s th e re al m an ag er

of the L an dlo rd
.-9- ARGUMENT AND AU THORITIES 1. The C ou rtsh ou ld r ev er se an d re m an d th is c ase f or a n ew tr ial because the trial cour t’s conclusion of law that Z aidi com m itted pe rj ur y is f

lawed in it s ov er -bread th an d no t ba se d up on le gal ly sufficie nt e vidence , and the co urt’s consequ ent findin gs as to the relative cred ibility of the parties is against the great w ei g ht and pr ep on de ra nc e of

t he e vid ence an d co ns ti tu te s an ab us e of discret ion. A
. T he tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in fa ili ng to spe ci fy the sta te m en t( s) it fo und to be perj ury , and there wa s no fabrication of evidence. A ppe lle es quo te onl y

pa rt of the tr ia l co urt’ s re m ar

ks at the co nc lus ionof

the
ev ide nc e. ( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 22. ) A lth oughhe sa id w ha t the y quo te d, he al so s ai d, before that, as Appellants q uoted in their brief (17–18 ): [W ] hat if the intent necessary for the ca

use of action that is pled has not been prov en to m

y satisfaction but I hav e determ ined that there wa s intent in testim ony

presented to m e that w as i n tended to either de ce ive the Co urt or

to dir ec tly

a nd i nte nti ona lly testi fy

c ontrary to th e fac ts as I ha ve fo und the m ba se d upon the doc um en ts? Two se pa rat e th in gs . N ot o nly did the tr ia l c ourt i nti m at e tha t the int en t t o c om m it fr au d in 2006 an d 20 07 ha d no t be enpr ove d to his sa tis fa ct ion , the co urt ne ve r ide nti fi ed one f al se sta te m en t
m ade by Za idi to d eceive the c ourt. Be cause of this failure, Appellants still are left to g ue ss a t w ha t c onst itu te s th e su pp ose d pe rj ur y a nd c an not

m eanin gf

ull y a ddr es s th is is su e o n a pp eal
. Pe rj ur y is the f ab ri ca tio n of

e vid en ce . T ha t di d no t ha ppe n in thi s c as e. F or be tte r or w or se , Z ai di c ont inu ed

to te ll a sto ry

tha t m ay be ha rd f or oth er s to be lie ve-10-

but tha t he ha s sa id fo r m an y y ears tha t he be lie ve s. Appe llants a cknow le dge tha t this is not a crim inal proceeding, but the trial cou rt’ s vague and non specific char ges are the be dr oc k ba sis f

or aJud gm en t of

m or e than $5 0, 000, 000. Tha t is e qua lly sig nif ic an t. “ Fa ct s c onst itu tin g th e of fe nse of pe rj ur y m ust be a ve rr ed

dir ec tly a nd with cer tainty .” Sta te v . E

ve rso le , 889 S. W
. 2d 418, 422 ( T ex . App. –H oust on [ 14th D ist
. ] 199 4, pe t. dis c. rev. de n. ). T he tr ia l c ourt’ s c onc lus ionof law tha t Z ai di
co m m itt ed pe rj ur y is fa ta lly

over -br oa d a nd n ot s uppo rt ed by le ga lly suf fi ci en t evidence. B. Cr ed ibi lity de te rm ina tio ns are the pr ovi nc e of the tr ia l c ourt. Appellants do no t dispu te this and did not dis pute i t i n their brief. Appellants contend th ere and her e t h at the court’ s credibility determ ination s wer e fl aw ed by his f la w ed c onc lus ion s r eg ar din g pe rj ur y , a nd the Ju dg m en t e loque ntl y de m on st rat es th is to be tru e. A ppe lle es inc re dib ly

sta te ( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 30) tha t “ ap pe llan ts fa il to specify any alleged inconsis tent testim ony [of Shah] with any bearing on any m aterial fa ct
. ” Appe lle es ’ apparent ly did not se e se ct ion1. C. of

Appe llants ’ Br ie f (1 9–30 ) which detailed n u m er o u s defec ts of all kinds in Shah’ s story
. Severa l facts ar e pa rt ic ularl y

m at er ia l: (1 ) Sh ahbe lie ve d that he ha d the ri ght to go for w ar d wi th the c los ing w ith out
an y c onse nts f

ro m a ny one , a nd h e did

j ust tha t t o pr ote ct

his inv es tm en t;-11-

(2) Shah knew at a ll tim es that the Hospital’ s lender dem anded and received
a w aiver of the Landlo rd’ s lien on receivables, and would not have issued the letter of cre dit securing th e H ospit al’ s rent that Shah m ade a r equirem ent of the lease; (3 ) Sh ahbr ough t hi m se lf int o th e de al w ith Me dis ta r an d w as the one w ho de sir ed to co ntr ol the r ea l e sta te , w hic h r equir ed the loan a nd the c los ing ; (4 ) co ntr ar

y to his c ontri ve d li tig at ionsto ry , the H ospi ta l inv es tor s, on m an y
oc ca sio ns, thanke d Sh ah fo r m ak ing the $70 0, 000 loan – w hic h he a cknow le dge d – to the H ospi ta l a t a

ti m e w he n it

ne ed ed it so b ad ly ; and (5 ) at no t im e pr ior

to 2010 did

S ha h e ve r as k a ny

que sti ons of

a ny one about any of the things he now claim s wer e so obvio usly fra udul ent, including th e existence of the so- ca lle d ex tr a L an dlo rd ac co unt tha t w as to ha ve be ense t up in 2007 w iththe $7 00 ,00 0 c he ck
. T he se ve ry

m at er ia l f

ac ts are a ll supp orte d by evide nc e oth er

than th e te sti m ony of Z ai di, a nd s ec tio n 1. C s et s ou t m an y m or e suc h m at er ia l de fe ct s in Sh ah ’ s f al se sto ry . Appe llants a re m or e than wi ll in g to l et thi s C ourt de te rm ine , in vie w of a ll the ev ide nc e ab out

him , if thi s be ha vio r re al ly

w as S ha h “ be ing w ill ing to gi ve ap pe ll an ts th e b en efi t o f th e d ou bt .” (App el le es ’ Bri ef, 3 0.) Ap p el l ee s ’ se v er al at t emp t s t o ex p l ai n aw ay t h e i n co n s i s t e n ci es i n Sh ah ’s story are unavail i ng. For e xam ple, they say (Appellees’ Brief

, 30) that Shah never
c a l l e dt h e $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 a l o a n . T h i s i s d e mo n s t r ab l y f a l s e . I n h i s J a n u a ry 2 0 0 8 me mo-12-

(P. Ex. 4 0) he id en ti fie d t hi s m on ey as “ bo rro wed ” fro m

Met ro an d t o b e rep ai d. Indeed, in perhaps a wea k m om ent when he had stray ed from his script on cross, Shah agreed that all the sum s he listed as due in th is January 2008 m em o wer e loan s he ha d m adeto th e Ho spital (4R R 2 82 :1 3– 28 3: 7)
. A ppe lle es de ny (Appe lle es ’ Br ie f, 32) tha t Sh ahstr uc tur ed the de al to favor

“ him se lf a nd h is fr ie nds at the ex pe nse of fe llo w inv es tor s. ” T he y ign or e as no d oubt inc onve nie nt the f

oll ow ing a dm iss ion : Q
. S o, w e ha ve tw o c la sse s of pe opl e. W e ha ve Me dis ta r an d th e three of y ou that are in this class [not pay ing cash]; and all the other poor sc hm uc ks tha t are in thi s c la ss, the y a re pa y ing c as h, r igh t? A. Yes, sir

. (4 RR 1 66 :7 –1 67 :7 ; Em

ph as is ad de d.) 2. Ap pellants are preven ted from adequ ately m ak ing th ei r a ppeal to th is C ou rtb ec au se t he t ri al c ou rt ’s gr oss award o f da m age s is ne i ther tied to specif

ic causes of act ion nor br ok en d ow n int o sp ec if ic it em s of da m age award ed , an d th er e is n o e vid en ce , or alterna ti v el y insufficie nt e vidence , t o support one or m ore of th e causes of action or it em s of dam age pleaded. T he tr ia l co urt’ s f

ind ing s of f ac t and c onc lus ion s of

law ( CR 119 9, Appe ndi x 2) c ont ai n no f

ind ing s of

a ny da m ag es a m ount s, a nd the Jud gm en t r ec ite s on ly dam ages aw arded without m aking any finding s as to how any actual dam ages we re
ar ri ve d a t or

f or w hic h c la im s. T his ha

ppe ne d e ve n th oughthe c ourt, a t the c los e of the e vid en ce , a ske d f

or pr opos ed f ind ing s a nd c onc lus ion s a nd s ai d: “ I do n eed the-13-

fi ndi ngs of

f ac t w hic h su

ppor t the num be rs , if a ny , tha t y ou s ugges t shou ld g o ina j udgm ent” (5RR 145:13–2 0). This also happened even tho ugh, after the court issued its findin gs and conclu sions on October 3, 2014 , Appellants o n Oc tober 10 requested ad dit ion al f

ind ing s a nd c on cl usions tha t w oul d ha ve quanti fi ed the da m ag es , by claim , to be awarded to Plaintiffs (CR 1207 ). Appellees cla im

(Appellees’ Brief

, 36) that Appellants’ arg u m en t that fi ndi ngs an d c onc lus ion s sh oul d no t c ont ai n a c um ula tiv e da m ag es a m ount (Appe llants ’ Br ie f, 33) is unsu ppor te d by auth or ity
. A ll of the ca se s c ite d inse ct ion 2 o f App el la nt s’ Bri ef s up po rt t hi s co nc lu si on . Ap p el l ee s d o co n ce d e (Ap p el l ee s ’ Br i ef , 35 an dfn .1 5 ) t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’s Judg m en t aw ar ds t o S ha h $1 67, 207. 34 m or e th anhe a ske d f or , a nd s ugge st a
re m itt itu r in this a m ount

a nd i n th e ex em

plary da m ag es ba se d up on this a w ar d. T his
w oul d be appr opr ia te if

a ny of the da m ag es co uld pa ss m ust er , w hic h th ey

c an not
. T he a w ar din g of

thi s e xc es s a m ount

hig hli ght s th e fl aw s in the tr ia l c ourt’ s Ju dgm en t, h o w e v e r . Th e t r i a l c o u rts i mp l y c o u l dn o te v e n c o rr e c t l y c a l c u l a t e , mu c h l e s s ju s t i f y, the a m ount s it

a w ar de d inbul k onthe c la im s Appe lle es a sse rt ed
. A ppe llees li st al l the c la im s a nd a m ount s a ttr ibu ta ble to the m

tha t they
as se rt ed
. T he se am ount s cannot be r ec onc ile d to the a m ount s st at ed in gr oss in the Judg m en t, how ev er , a nd the tr ia l cour t m ad e no ef

fo rt to do this. Appe lle es m er el y
as se rt w ith out sup port ( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 35) tha t be ca use the ir a d da m num a m ount-14-

was lar ge r th at th e am ou nt act ua ll y award ed , all di sc rep an ci es are h arm le ss erro r. 3. The t rial co ur t’s aw ard of aggregate dam ages aga inst A ppellant s based up on m ultiple alleged dam ages elem ents and its fail ur e to attribu te d am ages to or am ong the m ultiple causes of action alleged by Ap pellees is re versible er ror. Ther e ar e tw o reasons why the trial court’ s failure to m ake specific dam ages fi ndi ng s at tr ibu ta

ble to A ppe lle es ’ m

ult ipl e cl ai m s pr ev en ts A ppe llants f

ro m be ing ab le pro pe rly t o pr es en t th ei r cas e to th is Co ur t an d i s t he refo re err or . F irs t , the tr ial
co urt’ s f ai lur e to m ak e any fi ndi ngs co nc er nin g eac h App el la nt’ s liabil ity fo r, an d th e spe ci fi c am ount s of

, the m ult ipl e el em en ts of da m ag es a lle ge d by Appe lle es pr ev en ts Appellants from

being able to isolate the error s in the aggregate am ount s of dam ages
aw ar de d a s to e ac h by

the c ourt. Appe llants re m ind the Co urt tha t the y spe ci fi ca lly req ue st edsu ch fin di ng s b y cla im
. Se co nd , the tr ia l c ourt’ s fa il ur e to a ttr ibu te da m ag es se pa rat el yto the m ult ipl e ca use s of a ct iona lle ge d by

Appe lle es pr ev en ts A ppe llants and thi

s C ourt f ro m be ing able to de te rm ine w he ther th e Ju dgm en t i s ba se d up on v al id o r inv al id l ia bil ity the or ie s. The se er

ro rs “ pr ev en t the [ A ppe llants ] fro m pro pe rly pres en ti ng th e cas e to th e ap pe ll at e co ur ts ,” an d re qu ire rev ers al . T EX . R. A PP . P . 61. 1(b). Appellees have f ailed to address these errors in their brief
. The L andlord alleged m ore than $18.1 m illion in dam ages, and Shah alleged
mo r e t h a n $ 9
. 2 mi l l i o n i n d a mag e s a g a i n s tt h e “ D e f e n d a n t s , ” c o l l e c t i v e l y. (Appe lle es ’ Br ie f, 34 –3 5. ) P la int if fs of fe re d se ve ra l di ff

er en t c al cu la tio ns o f the ir-15-

dam ages to the trial court (Appellees’ Brief , 35) on the m

ultip le elem ents of dam ages al le ge d by

the m : tw el ve se pa ra te da m ag e el em en ts c la im ed by the L an dlo rd , a nd
se ve n se pa ra te e le m en ts c la im ed by S ha h. T he tr ia l c ourt aw ar de d a ct ua l da m ag es to the L an dlo rd of $4, 071, 584 an d to S ha h of

$9, 336, 920 (the lat te r ex ces siv e in any e ve nt, a s Appe lle es a dm it)
. T he
c o u rt m a d e n o f

i n d i n g s o f f

a c t c o n c e rn i n g t h e a m o u n t s o f d a m a g e s a w a r d e dbyit , w hic h e le m en ts o r am ount s c la im ed by Appe lle es it

a cc ep te d or

r ej ec ted, or

the el em en ts or a m ou nt s at tri bu ta bl e to an y pa rti cu la r cau se of a ct io n o r App el la nt
. In H arr is C ount y v. Sm ith , 96 S. W .3d 230, 232– 36 ( Te x. 2002), the T exas Su pr em e Co urt he ld tha t a

br oa d fo rm j ur

y ch ar ge tha t c om

m ing le d va lid

a nd i nva lid da m ag es e le m en ts c onst itu te d harm fu l e rr or a nd r equir ed

ane w tr ia l. I n so hol din g, the Co urt a

ppl ie d the re as oni ng o f its de ci sio n in Crown Life Ins. Co. v . C asteel , 22 S. W
. 3d 3 78 ( T ex . 200 0)
. I n Casteel , the Co urt he ld tha t a sin gle br oa d fo rm li ab ili ty questio n – the equiv alent to the finding s and conclusi ons here – that co m m ingles valid and in valid liabil ity grounds is harm ful and requires a n ew t ri al because an ap pe l l a t e c o u rt c a n n o t d e t e rm i n e w h e t h e r t h e j u ry b a s e d i t s v e r d i c t o n a n inv al id th eo ry of l ia bi li ty. I

d. a t 38 8. T he Co urt i n Harris County al so re lie d on its hol din g in Eastern Tex. Ele c. Co. v . B aker , 254 S
. W
. 933 , 934 –35 (T ex . 192 3) , in w hic h it held that a defendant is e ntitled “ to have the dam ages assessed a gainst it by the j ury unde r pr ope r ins tr

uc tio ns s ubm itt ing onl y

the e le m en ts o f da m ag es as ra ise d by the-16-

pleadings , and supp orted by th e e v i d en ce .” H arr is C ount y v. Sm ith , 96 S. W .3d at 234, quo tin g Eastern Tex . E lec. Co. v . B aker , 25 4 S .W . at 9 34
. T he r ule in H arr is C ount y ha s bee n held to be ap pli ca ble to d am ag es a w ar ds in no n- jury tr ia ls an d e ve n d efau lt jud gm en ts
. W hitak er v . R ose , 218 S
. W
. 3d 2 16, 224 n. 3 (Tex
. App .—Ho us to n [14 th Dis t.] 20 07 , no pe t.) ; Tagle v . G alv an , 155 S
. W
. 3d 51 0 (Te x. Ap p.— San Ant on io 20 04 , no pe t.). A ppe lle es ha ve w hol ly

f ai le d to ad dr ess the tr ia l c ourt’ s e rr or in fa ili ng t o
m ak e fi ndi ngs of

f ac t w ithr es pe ct

to the m ult ipl e el em en ts o f da m ag es al le ge d by the m a nd i n a w ar din g gr oss am ount s of da m ag es in the Jud gm en t. Appe lle es sim ply assert, “ [b] ut a Harris/Casteel pr ob le m arise s on ly if abul k da m ag es a w ar d is pr ed ic at ed

on an in va lid

li ab ili ty the or y . ” T his ar gum en t w as spe ci fi ca lly re j ec te d by the S upr em e Co urt i n H arr is C ount y : “ W e hol d th at Casteel’s rea sonin g applies equa lly to br oa d- fo rm

da m ag e que sti ons, a nd u nde r its r at ion al w e co nc lud e tha t the ch ar ge e rr or

in thi s c as e w as ha rm fu l. ” T hus, w he re agr oss or a ggr eg at e am ount

of da m ag es ba se d on va lid an d inv al id da m ag es el em en ts is aw ar de d, “ thi s c ourt m ust
re ve rs e an d r em an d a s to the e nti re a w ar d, e ve n th oughone of the oth er e le m en ts
m ight be sufficient to supp ort the aw ard. ” W hitaker v. R ose , 218 S
. W
. 3d a t 22 4, c iti ng Johnsto n v. Guiterrez , 77 S.W .3d 89 8, 9 0 3
- 0 4 (Tex . App .—Ho us to n [1 4t h Di st .] 2002 , no pet.) (explaining that its holding w as based upon the sam e principles applied in Casteel ).-17- A
. A n a w ar d ina nya m ount f or r ec ove ry

of “ los t” a cc ount s rece iv ab le is im

pr op er. A ppe llants ha ve sho w n inthe ir br ie f (3 0–49 ) tha t a subs ta nti al portio n of the da m a g e s c l a i m e db y

P l a i n t i f f s a r e n o ts up p o rt e db y

a n y e v i d e n c e o r

s u ff ic ie nt
ev ide nc e. T he L an dlo rd ’ s c la im of $11 , 218, 465 fo r the los s of a lle ge d a cc ount s
re ce iva ble of the H ospi ta l in 2009 has no va lid e vid en tiary

sup port. T his hug e cl ai m
wa s based on th e testi m ony of Shah’s n ephew, Para g Parikh, w ho assum ed there w as not a landlo rd’ s lie n wa iver alre ady in place before 2009 , c ontrary to the evidence (3 RR 181 :6- 182: 9)
. P ar ikh the n tot al ed a m ount s of

r ev enue a lle ge dly

r ec ei ve d by

the Hospi t al b etwe en May

2008 and a later , unknown, date and treated that am ount as
ac co unt s r ec ei vable
. H ow ev er , the f ac tua l e vid en ce is undisp ut ed that the r ec or ds
r e l i e d o n b y P a r i k h d i dn o tc o n t a i n a c c o u n t s r e c e i v ab l e d a t af o r t h e r e l e v a n tt i me pe ri od ( Sh eb ay , 5R R 16: 11- 18; 15: 2- 16) , an d th at , to the e xte nt the H ospi ta l e ve r did ha ve a ct ua l a cc ount s r ec ei vable , the L an dlo rd w as not pr ec lud ed f ro m f or ec los ing on th em by any all eg edwaiv er (3 RR 1 83 :5 -8 ). Ac counts receivable does not in clude “ collected” ac counts receivable (see A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 36– 37) , w hic h a re m or e pr ope rl y r ef er re d to a s re ve nue . Moreover, the li enon H ospi ta l a cc ount s r ec ei vable w as spe ci fi ca lly gr an ted to se cu re the pa ym en t of re nts unde r the le as e. ( L ea se , P
. E x. 30i
. ) T he re is no e vid en ce tha t pa stdue r en ts e ve r ap pr oa ch ed $11
. 0 m ill ion
. T he onl y c al cu la ti on of pa st-du e re nts-18-

pla ce d ine vid en ce w as S ha h’ s 20 08 m em o ( P. E x. 40 ) sh owing pa st- due r en t a s of Ja nuary 200 8 of $1, 482, 642. 50. E ve n that ca lc ula tio n wa s flaw ed in A ppe lle es ’ f av or be ca use it did not al low the fo ur -m onths of fr ee re nt p ro vid ed f or in the le as e. T he se
num bers cannot factually supp ort an aw ard o f $1 1.0 m illion in accounts receivable. A ppe llants ’ dis cu ssi on o f Bank o f A m er ic a’ s f ai lur e to c oll ec t any

a cc ount s ( A pp e l l a nt s’ B r i e f

, 41 ) w a s no t i nt e nd e d t o sp e a k t o a ny i ss ue e xc e pt t ha t such
ac co unt s di d not ex ist , a nd tha t c er ta inl y doe s have be ar ing on Appe lle es ’ da m ag es . And Pa ri kh’s unsuppo rted testim ony (Appellees’ Brief

, 37) that the L andlord
unsu cc es sf

ull y tri ed to fo re cl ose is no e vid en ce be ca use he te sti fi ed

a s a n e xpe rt , how ev er unqu al if

ie d, an d not as a fa ct w itn es s. H e ha d no suc h fac tua l knowledge. B. An aw ard based upon a contin gent asserted liability is im proper. T he a w ar d to S ha h by t he trial c ourt si m ilarl y m ay inc lud e the $5, 445, 291
co nti nge nt l ia

bil ity cl ai m ed by

S ha h r el at ed

to his guaranty

of the Me tr oB an k lo an , whi ch Sh ah pre vi ou sl y ha s in si st ed an d al le ge d he do es no t owe . ( 4R R 3 08 :1 5- 24 .) T his a m ount

ha s not bee n paid by Sh ah , an d ther e is no e vid en ce tha t i t w ill e ve r be pa id, or tha t i t m ay not be dis ch ar ge d or com pr om ise d for a dif

fe re nt am ount

in the fu tur e. “ A c ont ing en cy

w hic h c an not

be de te rm ine d w ithr ea sona ble c er ta inty c an not be m ade the basis for re covery of a def i n i t e amo u n t of dam ages.” Spiri tas v. R ob in ow itz , 544 S. W .2d 710, 720 (Tex. Civ. App.—Da llas 1976 , w rit ref ’ d n.r. e. ). Based on the trial rec ord, it canno t be known whether Shah has incurred any future-19-

pe cu ni ary da m ag e ari si ng ou t o f th e g ua ran ty. Id

. a t 71 9. App el l an t s s h o we dt h at t h i s amou n twa s n o tre co v er ab l e. (A p p el lants’ Brief , 44–4 5
. ) A p p e l l e e s a r g u e ( A p p e l l e e s ’ B r i e f , 3 8 ) n e v e rt h e l e s s t h a t S h a h ’ s d e n ia l of lia bil it yis ir

re le va nt and tha t Appe llants did not a tte m pt t o pr ove e sto ppe l. T he se posi tio ns a r e f

r a n k l y r i d i c u l o u s . I f

S h a h d e n i e s o w i n g t h e m o n e y , a n dc l a i m s h e is owed instead, it c annot be conclud ed that dam age to him in the am ount he has denied ha s be en“ de te rm ine d w ith re as ona ble ce rt ai nty
. ” It is the c ont ing en cy tha t m ust be de te rm ine d, not

the a m ount

of the c la im
. I t i s un de rs ta nda ble tha t S ha h wou ld l ike to h av e his c ak e – th e Judg m en t fo r thi s am ount – an d ea t it too – de nia l of the c la im i n t h e a r b i t r a t i o n , b u tt h i s d o e s n o ts up p o rtar e c o v e ry o f t h i s c o n t i n g e n c y. C. An aw ard of other dam ages to the Landlord is im proper. As Appellants have shown (Appellants’ Brief , 45–49), Appellees’ dam ages al so m ay ha ve incl ud ed inv al id c la im s f or $2. 8 m ill ionba se d onow ne rs hip uni ts al le ge dly “ giv en ” to M ed ist ar , a lth ough the re is no ev ide nc e of an y inv olv em en t of
an y of the Appe llants in thi s r eg ar d; $ 638, 000 tha t L an dlo rd a lle ge dly w as not

able to draw a gainst a letter of cr edit, although th er e i s no eviden ce L andlord ever at te m p t e d t o m a k e a d r a w ; a n d $ 1 , 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 f o r a l l e g e d “ c o m

m i s s i o n s ” p a id t o A ppe llants , a lth oughthe re is no e vid en ce of a ny co m m iss ionpa ym en t bu t the re is
co m pe te nt ev id en ce t ha t n o s uc h p aym en t was m ad e.-20-

The U nits: (Appellants’ Brief , 45–46.) Appellees argue (Appellees’ Brief , 39–4 0) that Appellants are liable because th ere was no evidence that L andlord
rece ived m oney

for the Me distar units
. Since this am ount wa s claim ed as dam age, it is e le m en ta ry

tha t it w as A ppe lle es ’ bur de n to pr ove tha t the da m ag e ex ist ed , a nd t h ey d i d n o t
. We ha v e al re ad y s h o wn t h at Sh ah k n ew al l al o n g ab o u t M e d i s t ar ’s uni ts; his kno w le dge w as not a t a ll lim ite d to the ti m e of tr ia l, a s hi s te sti m ony

sho w s. T he L et te r of Cr ed it: (Appe llants ’ Br ie f, 46– 48. ) I n r es pons e to Appe llants ’
co rr ec t obse rv at ion that the re w as no ev ide nc e tha t Z ai di ha d the le tte r of cr ed it or
re fu se d to tur

n it ove r , A p p e lle es a rg ue ( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 41– 42) tha t Z ai di o bvi ousl y poss es se d it w h e n h e s i g n e d i t
. T h i s i s n o t o b v i o u s a s i t i s e q u a l l y l i k e l y t h at he signed it at the bank. Appellees did n ot prove that he had it. Ther e is no evidence tha t any Appe llant c au se d da m ag e to the L an dlo rd w ith re spe ct to the le tte r of c re dit
. T he Bo gus Co m

m iss ion s C la im : ( Appe llants ’ Br ie f, 48– 50. ) I n the fa ce of cl ear ev ide nc e fr om

Z ai di – w ho c an not

be de em ed

to ha ve lie d abou t e ve ry

sin gle word he sa i d, r e gar dl e ss o f t he t r i a l c ou rt ’ s c on c l us i on s – M s. S a qe r , a nd Mr. Pe rr ym an , tha t M ed ist ar

did not pa y a ny c om m iss ion s to a ny one on th e sa le of the H os pi t a l r e a l e st a t e , a nd no e vi de nc e t o t he c on t r a ry , A pp e l l e e s w i t h fierc e de te rm ina tio n co nti nue to as se rt (Appe lle es ’ Br ie f, 42– 43) tha t i lle ga l c om m iss ion s
we re paid. They

of course do not attem

pt to sh ow how any

such com

m issio ns, even ha d th ey e xis te d, c oul d ha ve a ct

ua lly c au se d ha rm

to an y one , sin ce the str

uc tur e of-21-

the a gr ee m en t S ha h m ad e w ithMe dis ta r the ev en ing of D ec em be r 22, 200 6, w as not af fe ct ed in an y w ay . Appe lle es dis re ga rd a ll th e ev ide nc e, e ve n of Mr
. P er ry m an , w ho w a s no t c on ne c t e d t o a ny part y i n a ny w a y , say i ng si m pl y t ha t t he t r i a l court
co uld ha ve dis reg ard ed it
. T he tr ia l c our t c an not pr ope rl y

dis re ga rd

the
unc ontro ve rt ed

te sti m ony

of adis int er es te d w itn es s j us t be ca use he doe sn’ t l ike it
.

“ W hen there is confli cting evidence , the appe lla te c ourt usua lly re ga rd s the fin din g of th e tr ie r of

fact as c on cl us iv e. Se e Ja ure guiv . J ones, 695 S. W
. 2d 258, 263 ( T ex . App.–San Antonio 1985 , writ r ef' d n.r. e. ). ” Li fsh utz v . L ifs hut z , 61 S , W , 3d 5 11, 515 (T ex . A p p . – S a n A n t o n i o 2 0 0 1 , p e t
. d e n i e d ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )
. T h e r e w a s no
co nf lic tin g e vid en ce he re on this poi nt, onl y ins inu at ion , so the usua l r ule of appe lla te defere nce should not applyhere. D
. Co nc lus iona s to the se da m ag es . The tr ial court’ s failure to m ake any findings of fact r elating to any dam ages cl ai m ed by Appe lle es in the f

ind ing s a nd c onc lus ion s th at shou ld hav e supp orte d it s Judg m en t aw ar d of

gr oss a m ount s a ga ins t Appe llants pr ev en ts the m f ro m be ing able to i sol at e the e le m en ts o f da m ag es c la im ed by Appe lle es on w hi chthe Jud gm en t i s ba se d and p r o p e r l y

p r e s e n tt h e i r

ap p e a l t o th i s C o u rt
. B e c au s e t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e nt
ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

m or e than on e al le ge d da m ag es el em en t, ne ith er Appe llants nor th is Cou rt

c ande te rm ine w he the r the tr ia l c ourt aw ar de d da m ag es ba se d ontho se el em en ts
. A ll tha t c an b e kn ow n is tha t in orde r to arr iv e at t he am ount

aw arde d,For

the same r easons, the tr ial court’s a war d of punitive damag es must also be rev er s ed
. Bunton 1 v. Be ntley , 153 S.W .3d 50, 54 (Tex. 2004). -22- some pa rt of these invalid damages had to have been included
. Ther efore, this Court
s h o u l dr e v e r s e t h e d a ma g e s a w a r d s a g a i n s t A p p e l l a n t s a n d r e ma n d A p p e l l e e s ’ c l a i ms f o r a n e w tri al
. H

arr is C ount y v. Sm ith , 96 S
. W
. 3d a t 23 6; W hitaker v. R ose , 218 S. W
. 3d a t 22 4. 1 Be ca use the tr ia l c ourt a lso did not a llo ca te da m ag es a w ar de d by it to any of the m ultip le causes of ac tion alleged by Appellees, Appellants we re a gain harm ed
un de r the r

ule in Casteel , a nd a ne w t r i a l sh ou l d be gr a nt e d. T he S up r e m e Court
ru le d in Casteel tha t w he n a sin gle lia bil ity que sti on co m

m ing le s va lid and i nvali d lia bil ity gr ound s, and the Appe llants ’ obj ec tio n is ti m el y a nd s pe ci fi c, the e rr or

is ha rm fu l and a

new t ria l i s r equir ed

be ca use the appe lla te c ourt c an not de te rm ine wh et h er t h e verdict is based on an inv alid theory
. He re, because the trial c ourt
as se sse d gr oss da m ag e am ount s in favor of the L an dlo rd an d Sh ah , Appe llants c an not know w ha t am ount s the tr ia l cour t m ay ha ve aw ar de d inc onne ct ionw iththe m ult ipl e
ca use s of a ct iona lle ge d by

Appe lle es . Appe llants ha ve sho w n th at li ab ili ty a ga ins t them cannot be based on on e or m ore of Appellees’ fra ud, m isrepresentation, brea ch of f idu ci ar y duty , c onsp ira cy , and a lte r eg o c la im s a s am at te r of law . Appe llants
ca nno t , h o w e v e r , d e t e rm i n e w h e t h e r a n y o r a l l o f t h e d a m a g e s a w a r d e din the Judg m en t ar e at tributable to th ese invalid liabili ty claim s. A s one sing le exam ple,-23-

the re is not

e ve n asc int ill a of

e vid en ce tha t C ha gla

e ve r ow ed

a fid uc ia ry

duty to Appellees, m

uch less that he breached it. Ye t the trial cou rt fou nd him liable for such a brea ch, and Appellants can o nly guess at t he am ount of dam ages attributed to that cl ai m . Appe llants a re pr ev en ted f ro m pr es en tin g th ei r ap pe al be ca use the y c an not iso la te a nd qua nti fy

the tr ia l cour

t’ s e rr or . T he e rr or

is ha rm fu l, a nd this Co urt sh oul d
rev ers e th e Ju dg m en t and or de r a n ew tr ia l. Crown Life Ins. Co. v . C asteel , 22 S
. W
. 3d at 38 8. 4. No dam ages w ere proxim ately caused by any m isrepre sentation b y

any App ellant. (Appellants’ Br ief, 50–5 4.) A ppe lle es in thi s se ct ion( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 43–4 4) sim ply r es ta te the ir earlier positi ons , which Appellants believe they have alre ady

addressed. Shah be lie ve d h e ha d th e au tho ri ty to en te r int o th e m ortga ge w ith out a ny c onse nts , a nd A ppe llants ha ve sho w n th at he ha d e ve ry

reas on to do so and n one not to. T he se
ar gum en ts are not

“ post -tri al spe cu la tio n ” ( A p p e l l e e s ’ B ri ef

, 44) ; the y a re the dr aw ing of ve ry obv iou s in fe re nc es f

ro m und isp ute d f

ac ts. 5. A pp el le es ra ti fi ed e ve ry th in g of whic h th ey c om pl ain
. ( A ppe llants ’ Brief , 54–55.) A ppe lle es a sse rt

( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 44–4 5) tha t Appe llants ne ith er c ite nor quot e an y m em o by Sh ahto supp ort the r at if ic at ion
. T his is fa lse
. Appe llants c al l A ppe lle es ’ a nd the Co urt’ s a tte nti on t o P la int if fs ’ E xhi bit

40, w hic h de sc ri be d th e $ 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 as “ Bo rr o we dfr o m Me t ro o n 8 / 2 1 / 0 7 ,” an dwh i ch s et o u t , b y Sh ah ’s-24-

acknowledgm ent, a l l o f t he am ount s Shah adm itted wer e loans the Landlord had
m ad e to the H ospi ta l (4RR 282: 13–2 83: 7)
. T he H ospi ta l’ s re spon se (D
. E x. 40) a nd Sh ah ’ s c ondu ct

the re af te r ef fe ct ua te the r at if

ic at ion
. 6. Re im bursem en t for th e sum s paid to sett le w ith t he Lan dlord in ve st or s ef

fect s a do ubl e rec ov ery . (Ap pe ll an ts ’ Bri ef, 5 6– 57 .) App el le es he re as se rt ( App el le es ’ Bri ef, 4 5– 46 ) th at as a “ te ch ni cal m at te r,” the re is no evid en ce tha t Shah own s a ny of the L an dlo rd

now . D ef

en da nt’ s E xhi bit 67 (p
. 36 of 42) , lis ts S ha h’ s ow ne rs hip a s “ In dus A sso ci at es , A ttn : P an ka j K
. S ha h, MD , Mana ge r.” Thi s is c er ta inl y ate ch nic al ity , sin ce it

w as pr es um ed

a ll thr ough tr ia l, a nd ne ve r dis put ed , tha t In dus A sso ci at es w as S ha h’ s w hol ly ow ne d in ve stm en t vehicle: Indus is Shah, and Appellees do not deny this. This fac t is m ade all the m ore pla in i n th at

a ll of S ha h’ s un its in the L an dlo rd , w hic h he doe s cla im , w er e iss ue d in the I ndus A sso ci at es na m e. ( P. E x. 3.) Althoug h th er e w er e m an y inv es tor s a t the beginn in g , af

ter the settlem ent, a t bankruptcy , ther e w ere onlythree, and Shah wa s th e b ig on e, wit h “ App ro xi m at el y 76 .7%.” (D. Ex . 67 , p. 3 6 o f 42 .) 7. T h e e xe m p lary dam ages are excessive across the b oard. (App el la nts ’ Brief , 57. ) App ellees in this section (Appellees’ Brief , 46) sim ply restate their

ear lier posit ions, which Appellants b elieve they have alrea d y

addressed. The e xem

plary da m ag es m

ust f al l a lon g w iththe de fe ct ive a w ar d of c om pe nsa tor y da m ag es .-25-

8. No m alicious conductof Z aidi or Chagla w as show n. ( A ppe llants ’ Bri ef, 5 7– 59 .) A ppe lle es in thi s se ct ion( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 46– 47) sim ply r es ta te th ei r
earl ie r posi tio ns, w hic h App el la nts be lie ve the y ha ve al re ady a ddr es se d. Appe llants ad do n l y t h at t h e c as e i s fa r mor e c o m p el l i n g as t o Ch ag l a, w h o wa s n o tZa i d i ’s

“ long -term

partner. ” (Appellees’ Brief , 47. ) Chagla w as a re tired cleric al em ploy ee
w ho h ad ave sti gia l ow ne rs hip int er es t in TM G but did not dir ec t its ac tiv iti es in any
w ay tha t any ev ide nc e show ed
. T he ex em plary da m ag e aw ar d aga ins t him , w he n he did nothin g but not ar iz e one doc um en t, an d co uld not ap pe ar to de fe nd h im se lf

due to life-threate ning illness, shocks the c on sc i e nc e , particularly when one considers that he w as so u nim

porta nt t o Appe lle es unt il tr ial tha t the y ne ve r ev ennot ic ed

his de posi tio n. 9. Ap pellees’ frau d a nd r elated d am ages are not supp orted by any legally suffic ient e vidence . (App el la nt s’ Bri ef, 5 9– 67 .) A ppe llants pr ove d th at

the se c la im s m

ust f a l l be ca use the y a re ne ith er

le ga lly
nor f ac tua lly supp orte d. Appe llants m ad e the ir a rg um en t and c ite d a

ppr opr ia te c as es . In response, Appellees argu e i n s i x pages essentially for the cr eation of a concept of “ collective fiduciary duty ” that w ould allow the court sim ply to decide that
som eo ne did

som ethin g w ro ng and the n ho ld e ve ry one c onne ct ed to tha t m al ef

ac tor lia ble f or br ea chof fi duc ia ry duty . A ppe lle es in the ir Br ie f ci te thr ee c as es , tot al , a nd not one stands fo r the “ co lle ct ive f idu ci ar y duty ” co ncep t. I t do es not e xis t. T he-26-

co ur t i n H

en dri ck s v . T horn ton , 973 S
. W
. 2d 3 48 ( T ex . App. –B ea um ont 199 8, pe t. denied), did rec ogni ze a se para te ca use of a ct ionf or a idi ng and a

be tti ng a br ea chof fi duc ia ry duty , but tha t c au se of act io n w as not ple ad ed he re a ga ins t any

Appe llant oth er than Z ai di, a nd the Jud gm en t di d no t a sse ss lia bil ity ag ai nst an y A ppe llant o n thi s gr ound
. Appellants believe that they have addressed every relationship that existed be tw ee n a nd a m ong the pa rt ie s, a nd tha t the y ha ve sho w n th at , unde r the fa ct s of thi s case, neither Zaidi nor Chagla breac hed any applicable fiduciary

duty or com m itted fr au d a ga ins t e ith er

S ha h or the L an dlo rd
. Appe llants stand o n th at a rg um en t. 10. Ap pe l l a nts cann ot be h eld liable f or fraud ulentindu cem ent. (Ap pe ll an ts ’ Bri ef, 6 7.) Appellees d i sp ut e ( A

pp e l l e e s’ B r i e f

, 5 2– 53 ) Appellants’ contention that they
cannot be he ld l ia

ble f or f ra udul en t i nduc em en t be ca use the y w ere n ot par

tie s to
co ntr ac ts w ithAppe lle es . T he ir r at ion al e is th at Appe llants did not c ite ac as e supp ortin g th is p ro posi tio n a nd tha t su cha hol din g w oul d be “ co ntr ar y to ba sic f ra ud principles.” ( Appellees’ Brief . 53. ) A ppe llants c al l Appe lle es ’ a nd the Co urt’ s at te nti on t o th is l an gua ge in the ir brief: Fr au dul en t i nduc em en t c anonl y e xis t a s ac au se of

a ct ion w ithr es pe ct

to a co ntr ac t be tw ee n aP la in ti ff and aD ef en da nt. “ Fraudulent indu cem ent ‘ is a particular s pecies of fr aud’ that re qui re s pr oo f of

the c om m on l awe le m en ts o f fr au d a nd a-27- contract . . . between the parties .” H aase v . G laz ne r, 62 S
. W
. 3d 79 5, 7 98 –9 9 (Te x. 2 00 1, em ph as is ad de d)
. App el la nt s s ta nd on th is pro po si ti on of l aw. 11 – 15. A pp el lan ts st an d on t he ir Br ie f on t he se iss ue s. W ith the exception of Appell ee ’s p oint 1 4 (Appellees’ Brief , 55-56), A ppe llants be lie ve the y ha ve pr ove d tha t the ir posi tio ns ar e co rr ec t onthe se iss ue s. (Ap pe ll an ts ’ Bri ef, 6 8– 74 .) A ppe lle es ’ point 14 as se rt s th at the tr ia l c ourt ha d th e ri ght a s am at te r of dis cr et ion to “ im

pose co nse que nc es on Ch ag la ’ s f ai lur e to a ppe ar . . . . ” ( A ppe lle es ’ Br ie f, 55. ) T his is w ro ng u nde r our f ac ts. Ch ag la di d n ot refu se to ap pe ar, an d h e d id no t c h o o s e n ot to ap pe ar. He
co uld not appe ar , a nd the tr ia l c ourt r efu se d to or de r him to ap pe ar

ba se d up on the uncont roverted evidence fr om his docto r that travel f

rom Pakistan t o Ho u ston was
m e di c a l l y i m po ss i bl e . App e l l e e s ne ve r a t t e m pt e d i n a l l t he y e a r s t hi s c a se wa s pe nd in g, be fo re h e ret ur ne d h om e, to tak e h is de po si ti on . He di d n ot hi ng wron g. To hold that the draconian penalties im posed by the trial court under these circum stances
w er e pe rm iss ibl e is unc onsc ion ab le , a s is Appe lle es ’ c ont inu ing de m an d f or the se pe na lti es .-28- CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Fo r al l the se r ea sons , a nd the r ea sons se t ou t i n Appe llants ’ Br ie f, the Judg m en t of

the tr ia l c ourt sh oul d be r ev er se d, a nd this c as e shou ld b e re m an de d f or
a ne w tr ia l ona ll iss ue s of li ab ili ty a nd d am ag es . June 22, 201 5 Re spe ct fu lly sub m itt ed , LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS R. LITTLE B y 

### /s/ D ou gl as R
. L i t t l e D ougl as R. L itt le S ta te Bar N o. 124 1660 0 T he L yri c Ce ntr e, S uit e 900 440 Louisiana Stree t H oust on, T ex as 770 02 71 3. 275. 2069 do ug@d ougl as rl itt le
. co m
CAMP BELL, HARRISON & DAGLEY L. L. P. By /s/ Ro binL
. H ar

ri son R obi n L
. H ar

ri son S ta te Bar N o. 091 2070 0 90 9 F an ninS tr ee t, 40th F loo r H oust on, T ex as 770 10 ( 713) 752 -2 332 ( 713) 752 -2 330 Fa cs im ile COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS ADE EL ZAIDI, A. K. CHAGLA, PRESTIGE CONSU LTING, INC., AN D APEX KAT Y PHYSICI ANS – TMG, LLC-29- CE RT IFI CAT E O F CO MPL IA NCE I he re by c er tif y tha t thi s br ie f w as pr oduc ed on a c om put er usi ng Wor d Pe rf ec t1 2 s o ft wa re an dco n t ai n s 6 ,6 7 5 wo rd s , a s d et er m i n ed b y t h e s o ft wa re ’s
wor d- co un t f

unc tio n, e xc lud ing tho se se ct ion s of the br ie f lis te d inT ex as Ru le of A ppe lla te P ro ce dur e 9. 4( i) (1 ) as be ing e xc lud ab le
. T he tot al ap pli ca ble w or d c ount fo r both br ie fs f

ile d by Appe llants in thi s c as e is 2 5, 391.



### /s/ D ou gl as R
. L i t t l e D ougl as R. L itt le

CE RT IFI CAT E O F SE RVI CE I here by certify that a true and correct c opy of the fore goin g pleading h as be ense rv ed

upo n a ll co unse l l ist ed

be lowvia

e Fi le T ex as . gov or

e le ctro ni c m ai l on the 22n d day

of Jun e, 201 5: Je re m y G as ton A ndr ewK
. Me ad e H aw as h M ea de , e t a l. 2118 Sm ith Street H oust on, T ex as 770 02 

### / s / D o u g la s R . L ittle D ougl as R. L itt le-30-