Court Opinion

ID: 9929961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:07:26.507354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:51.414665
License: Public Domain

Moghtaderi v Apis Capital Advisors, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30353(U)
                    January 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 650287/2020
                 Judge: Melissa A. Crane
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 650287/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. MELISSA A. CRANE                                            PART                             60M
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          650287/2020
             KAMRAN MOGHTADERI,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE            N/A
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         005
                                                 - V -

             APIS CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,DEKI CAPITAL GP,
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             LLC,ERIC C ALMERAZ, DANIEL J BARKER
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 145, 146, 147, 148,
            149, 150, 151, 152, 173, 174, 175, 176
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        PRECLUDE

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      That part of defendant's motion to preclude plaintiffs expert is granted in its entirety.

            Plaintiff has utterly disregarded several deadlines and the rules of this court. In its preliminary

            conference order dated 11/28/2022, this court set 4/14/2023 as the deadline to complete expert

            discovery [see EDOC 50] and tied the note of issue to that same date. That order also expressly

            states that the dates were "final," could not be adjourned by stipulation and that failure to comply

            "will result in waiver, preclusion and/or other penalties as appropriate." That same order also

            warned that "[i]f any dispute over discovery arises, the parties must promptly meet and confer in

            good faith to resolve the issues. If the parties cannot compromise and resolve the issues, they

            must immediately contact the court at SFC-Part60@nycourts.gov to request a conference,

            otherwise the issues will be waived (see Part Rule 8 [a])."

             650287/2020 MOGHTADERI, KAMRAN vs. APIS CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC                                            Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 005

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 650287/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                    On 4/13/2023, plaintiff filed the note of issue certifying that all discovery was complete

            except for certain depositions that plaintiff had asked for in a motion to compel that was then

            pending. Indeed, the granting of that motion (motion 2) led to another motion to compel from

            plaintiff on July 24, 2023. Thus, clearly, plaintiff has had no trouble asking the court to award

            discovery throughout the course of this acrimonious litigation. Never, during the midst of all this

            motion practice (or at any other point) did plaintiff reveal they intended to call an expert at trial.

                    Commercial Division rule 13 ( c ) states that "the note of issue and certificate ofreadiness

            may not be filed until the completion of expert disclosure. Expert disclosure provided after these

            dates without good cause will be precluded." PLAINTIFF is the one who filed the NOI stating

            that all discovery was complete except for items involved in the motion to compel mentioned

            above. Plaintiff did not mention on the NOI that he was waiting for documents from a non-party

            or the future interposition of an expert. Despite the waiver language in the court's order, at no

            point did plaintiff apprize the court that they still needed discovery, were waiting for non-party

            documents or intended to present an expert at trial.

                    It was not until December 20, 2023, that plaintiff finally disclosed on their list of

            witnesses for trial that they were calling an expert. This more than 8 months after the close of

            expert discovery and filing of the note of issue, and after this case was scheduled for trial.

                    The lack of receipt of non-party documents is not an excuse. At no point did the plaintiff

            reach out to the court as directed in discovery orders. Considering that plaintiff has had no

            problem reaching out to the court for every trivial discovery dispute, it is surprising he did not

            reach out about needing an expert prior to the time that all deadlines for expert discovery had

            lapsed. At the very least, he could have mentioned the need for expert disclosure on the NOL

             650287/2020 MOGHTADERI, KAMRAN vs. APIS CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC                           Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 005

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 650287/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            Instead, plaintiff waited until the eve of trial. This is prejudicial to defendants who have been

            diligently preparing for a trial without an expert for months.

                    Finally, not only did plaintiff utterly fail to comply with the deadlines for expert

            disclosure that this court set, or even the deadlines contained in the Commercial Division rules,

            the expert disclosure that plaintiff did make was woefully insufficient. For starters, there is no

            written report from the expert. Accordingly, for all these reasons, the court precludes plaintiff

            from calling its expert, Mark Gottlieb, at trial.

                    Plaintiff also seeks to introduce at trial his own affidavit from a prior motion. Plaintiff

            provides no basis to admit this affidavit as evidence, especially considering he opposes

            defendant's use of depositions as direct testimony which the court had encouraged (see motion

            6). Should it come to pass in response to a question during live testimony, that plaintiff cannot

            recall sufficiently to formulate an answer, there is nothing precluding plaintiff from using his

            affidavit or anything else to refresh his recollection. However, there is no basis to admit the

            affidavit as evidence. Similar analysis applies to the depositions plaintiff seeks to interpose.

            They can be used for impeachment purposes, but, without more, do not come in as exhibits (see

            CPLR 3117).

                    Finally, plaintiff is precluded from challenging defendants' updates to the "income hurdle

            rate." Plaintiff does not appear to oppose this portion of defendant's motion. That was wise.

            Back on May 12, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed this court's dismissal

            of plaintiffs breach of contract claim as to the updated Income Hurdle Rate:

                   Plaintiffs breach of contract claim as to the updated Income Hurdle Rate was
                   properly dismissed. Under section 1.09(a) of Addendum B, defendants were
                   permitted to "update" the Income Hurdle Rate from time to time in their sole
                   discretion. The decision to use the word "update" rather than "amend" must be
                   viewed as intentional. Moreover, the language of section 1.10 of Addendum B

             650287/2020 MOGHTADERI, KAMRAN vs. APIS CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC                          Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 005

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 650287/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 177                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                    shows that the parties chose to ensure certain defined terms were fixed on the
                    earlier of the withdrawal effective date and the date ofrequest or notice of
                    withdrawal. However, Income Hurdle Rate was not included in this list, and
                    therefore, defendants were free to update the Income Hurdle Rate in 201 7 from
                    $1.5 million to $2.2 million without obtaining plaintiffs consent.

            Moghtaderi v. Apis Cap. Advisors, 205 A.D.3d 504, 505-06 (1 st Dep't 2022). Accordingly, if

            plaintiff intended to revive this claim at trial with evidence about the calculation of the updated

            income hurdle rate, he is precluded.

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED THAT the court grants defendants' motion in limine to preclude in its

            entirety.

                                                                         202 4 0 1 3 ~ 4 8 D ~ 2 E E 9 5 1

                     1/30/2024
                       DATE                                                     MELISSA A. CRANE, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED        GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION :               SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE :      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             650287/2020 MOGHTADERI, KAMRAN vs. APIS CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC                         Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 005

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]