Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-06-2024

Case Style:

Michael Weiss, et al. v. Rajai A. Othman, et al.

Case Number: 30-2018-01003632

Judge: Craig L. Criffin

Court: Superior Court, Orange County, California

Plaintiff's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Santa Ana Personal Injury Lawyer Directory



Defendant's Attorney: Arash Shirdel

Description: Santa Ana, California personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendants alleging
multiple causes of action including (1) intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (2) intentional interference with contractual relations; (3) civil conspiracy; and (4) unlawful and unfair business practices. Weistec named Rajai as a defendant in each of these causes of action, but named Amal only in the civil conspiracy cause of action. Weistec did not pray for a particular amount of damages, only "damages according to proof," punitive damages, fees, and costs. When Rajai and Amal defaulted, the court entered a default judgment against both in the amount of $425,342.46, which represented $300,000 in general damages and prejudgment interest of $125,342.46. The court also ruled Mohammad, Rajai, and Amal were jointly and severally liable.


Plaintiff Michael Weiss owns Weistec Engineering, Inc. (collectively, Weistec), which manufactures car parts and imports luxury cars. Weistec previously employed defendant Mohammad Othman, who is Rajai and Amal's son.[1] While working at Weistec, Mohammad allegedly stole more than $300,000 by generating sales orders from Weistec's customers and then directing those customers to make payments to his personal accounts. Mohammad also created false records in Weistec's system related to these payments. Once Weistec shipped the order, Mohammad deleted evidence of the sales order and payment. Weistec alleged this was part of a conspiracy between Mohammad and Rajai to misappropriate Weistec's funds and property. Weistec alleged Mohammad "diverted [these] funds from [Weistec] to his father, [Rajai], and mother, [Amal], in order to conceal his unlawful conduct.

* * *

Weiss v. Othman, G062685 (Cal. App. Nov 06, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: