Preview
CAUSE NO - 2018
Melania Estela Rivera Bonilla In the District Court of
Harris County, Texas
Shafaii Investments, Ltd.,
Raj Shafaii, and Party and
Reception Center, Inc. 113th Judicial District
CAUSE NO. 2018 84533
Alfredo Hernandez, Mary In the District Court of
Andrade, Margarita
Angelino Trujillo, Maria
Sanchez, Luz Anguillon,
and Erica Pichardo
Harris County, Texas
Shafaii Investments, Ltd.,
Party and Reception Center,
Inc., and Raj Shafaii 133rd Judicial District
inal Judgment
The Court has considered Plaintiffs Motion to Disregard Jury Findings and
Motion for Entry of Judgment and the Court makes the following rulings:
The case was tried to a jury, with the jury returning its verdict on June
2, 2021. The jury s findings are set forth inthe C arge of the Court, on
file with the Court The Charge of the Court is incorporated herein
reference
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Melania Estela Rivera s motion
to disregard estion Number of the Court s Charge. It is therefore
ORDERED that the jurys answer to Question Number of th
Court s Charge is disregarded and set side.
The Court declare , as a matter of law, that Defendants Shafaii
Investments, Ltd. and Raj Shafaii collected or attempted to collect a
charge, fee, or xpense that was expressly authorized by the parties
agreement or otherwise legally chargeable to Plaintiff Bonilla.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Margarita Angelino Trujillo s motion to
disregard estion Number 16 of the Court s Charge. It is therefore
ORDERED that the jurys answer to Question Number is
disregarded and set side.
The Court declare , as a matter of law, that Defendants Shafaii
Investments and Raj Shafaii directly or indirectly engaged in debt
collection with regard to Plaintiff Angelino.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Bon s motion to disregard estion
Number of the Court s Charge It is therefore ORDERED that t
jury s answer to Question Number 20 of the Court s Charge is set aside
and disregarded.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Angelino s motion to disregard Question
Number 22 of e Court s Charge It is therefore ORDERED that the
jury s answer to Question Number 2 of the Court s Charge is set aside
and disregarded.
jury de affirmative findings in favor of Plaintiff Bonilla
follows:
Defendant Shafaii Investments agreed to insure or obtain
insurance for Plaintiff Bonilla’s property (Question Number 1)
efendant Shafaii Investments breached th agreement
insure or obtain insurance for aintiff Bonilla’s property
(Question Number
Defendant Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii committed
common law fraud and statutory fraud in their dealings with
Plaintiff Bonilla (Question Numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6);
Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii violated the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by: (1) engaging in an
unconscionable action or course of action that was a producing
cause of Plaintiff Bonilla’s damages; (2) engaging in false,
misleading, or deceptive acts that were a producing cause of
Plaintiff Bonilla’s damages (Question Numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts
engaged in debt collection in their dealings with Plaintiff
Bonilla (Question Number );
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts
violated the Texas Debt Collection Act in their dealings with
Plaintiff Bonilla by using threats, coercion, or attempts to
coerce (Question Number and by using fraudulent,
deceptive, misleading representations (Question Number
Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii’s violations of
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Debt
Collection Act were committed knowingly (Question Number
Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $14,000, which
represents the reasonable and necessary cost to repair or
replace Plaintiff Bonilla’s property following the 2015 flood
(Question Number 19)
Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $18,000 for the
mental anguish caused by endant Shafaii Investments in the
past (Question Number 19);
Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $12,500 for the
mental anguish caused by Defendan Raj Shafaii in the past
(Question Number 19);
Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $5,000 for the
mental anguish caused by endant Robert Kouts in the past
(Question Number 19);
Defendant Shafaii Investments’ should pay Plaintiff Bonilla
$21,000 in treble damages for its knowing violation of the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection
Act (Question Number
jury de affirmative findings in favor of Plaintiff Angelino
follows:
Defendant Shafaii Investments agreed to insure or obtain
insurance for Plaintiff Angelino’s property (Question Number
Defendant Shafaii Investments breached th agreement
insure or obtain insurance for Plaintiff Angelino’s property
(Question Number
Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii committed
common law fraud and statutory fraud in t r dealin with
Plaintiff Angelino (Question Numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6);
Defendan Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii violated the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in their dealings with
Plaintiff Angelino by: (1) engaging in an unconscionable action
or course of action that was a producing cause of Plaintiff
Angelino’s damages; (2) engaging in false, misleading, or
deceptive acts that were a producing cause of Plaintiff
Angelino’s damages (Question Numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10);
Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii made a
negligent misrepresentation that Plaintiff Angelino justifiably
relied on (Question Number 11);
Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii violated the
Texas Debt Collection Act in their dealings with Plaintiff
Angelino by using fair or unconscionable means e.g.
collecting or attempting to collect interest or a charge, fee, or
expense incidental to an obligation unless the interest or
charge, fee, or expense was expressly authorized by the
agreement creating the obligation or legally chargeable to
Plaintiff Angelino (Question Number 17)
Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii’s violations of
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Debt
Collection Act were committed knowingly (Question Number
Plaintiff Angelino was damaged in the amou t of $20,000
which represents the reasonable and necessary cost to repair or
replace Angelino’s property following the 201 flood (Question
Number 21);
Plaintiff Angelino was damaged in the amou t of $20,000 for
the mental anguish caused by Shafaii Investments in the past
(Question Number 21);
Plaintiff Angelino was damaged in the amou t of $19,500 for
the mental anguish caused by Raj Shafaii in the past (Question
Number 21);
Defendant Shafaii Investments’ should pay $21,000 for its
knowing violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and Texas Debt Collection Act (Question Number 26)
10. The jury also awarded Plaintiff Bonilla attorney fees in the following
amounts: (1) $75,000 for trial as to Defendants Shafaii Investments
and Raj Shafaii; (2) $25,000 for trial as to Defendant Robert Kouts;
$40,000 for representation through appeal to the court of appeals
as to all Defendants; (4) $10,000 for representation at the petition for
review stage in the Texas Supreme Court as to all Defendants; (5)
$20,000 for representation at the merits briefing stage in the Texa
Supreme Court as to all Defendants; and (6) $10,000 for
representation through oral argument and the completion of
proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court as to all Defendants
(Question Number 27).
The jury also awarded Plain Angelino attorney fees in the following
amounts: (1) $ ,000 for trial as to Defendants Shafaii Investments
and Raj Shafaii; (2) $40,000 for representation through appeal to the
court of appeals as Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii
$10,000 for representation at the petition for review stage in the
Texas Supreme Court as Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj
Shafaii; ( ) $20,000 for representation at the merits briefing stage in
the Texas Supreme Court as Defendants Shafaii Investments and
Raj Shafaii; and ( ) $10,000 for representation through oral
argument and the completion of proceedings in the Texas Supreme
Court as Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii (Question
Number 27).
Court ders and declares that Plaintiff Bonill have and recover
a judgment against Defendant Shafaii Investments for $32,000 in
actual damages $21,000 in treble damages
13 Court ders and declares that Plaintiff Bonill have and recover
a judgment against Defendant Raj Shafaii for $26,500 in actual
damages
14 Court orders and declares that Plaintiff Bonilla have and recover
a judgment against Defendants Shafaii I vestments and Raj Shafaii,
jointly and severally, for $75,000 in attorney fees for trial, $40,000 in
conditional attorney fees for an appeal to the court of appeals, and
,000 in conditional attorney fees for proceedings before the Texas
Supreme Court.
15: urt ders and declares that Plaintiff Bonill have and recover
a judgment against Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and
t Kouts, jointly and severally, for an additional $5,000 in actual
damages, and an additional 5,000 in attorney fees for trial,
$40,000 in conditional attorney fees for an appeal to the court of
appeals, and ,000 in conditional attorney fees for proceedings
before the Texas Supreme Court.
16 urt ders and declares that Plain Angelino have and
recover a judgment against Defendant Shafaii Investments for
$40,000 in actual damages, and $21,000 in treble damages under the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
17: urt ders and declares that Plain Angelino have and
recover a judgment against Defendant Raj aii for $39,500 in
actual damages.
18 urt ders and declares that Plain Angelino have and
recover judgment ainst Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj
Shafaii, jointly and several , for $50,000 in attorney fees for trial,
$40,000 in conditional appellate fees for an appeal to the court of
appeals, and $40,000 in conditional attorney fees for proceedings
before the Texas Supreme Court.
19 The Court declare Defendants Shafaii Investments, Shafaii, and
Kouts were debt collectors in their dealings with Plaintiff Bonilla
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Shafaii, and Kouts are permanently
enjoined and restrained from foreclosing on Plaintiff Bonillas rea
property for any default that may have occurred _n or before June 2,
endants hafaii Investments, Shafaii, and Kouts are permanently
enjoined from falsely accusing Plaintiff Bonilla of fraud or any other
crime in connection with her execution of the insurance dated
October 19, 20 in the amount of $28,770.09
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Shafaii, and Kouts are permanently
enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect late fees from
Plaintiff Bonilla for any payments less than 10 days late.
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts are
permanently enjoined from misrepresenting the character, extent, or
amount of any consumer debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff Bonilla.
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts are
permanently enjoined from representing that any consumer debt
allegedly owed by Plain Bonilla may be increased by the addition
of attorney fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if a
written contract or statute does not authorize the additional fees or
charge.
25 Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts are
permanently enjoined from using any false representation or
deceptive means to collect a debt from Plain Bonilla.
The Court declare Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii
Shafaii were debt collectors in their dealings with Plain Angelino
27. Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii are permanently
enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect late fees from
Plaintiff Angelino for any payments less than 10 days late.
28 Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover against prejudgment interest
on all sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five
percent per annum, beginning on February 5, 2018, and continuing
until the date this Final udgment is signed.
Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover post judgment interest on all
sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five percent
r annum, beginning the d y after this Final udgment is signed
and continuing until all amounts awarded in this Final Judgment are
paid.
Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover against prejudgment interest
on all sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five
percent per annum, beginning November 2 , 2018, and continuing
until the date this Final udgment is signed.
31 Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover post judgment interest on
all sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five percent
eran , beginning the d y after this Final udgment is signed
and continuing until all amounts ard in this Final Judgment are
paid.
Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover a judgment against
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Ro t Kouts for her
court costs, including interpreter fees, with the costs taxed against
Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Ro t Kouts,
jointly and severally.
Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover a judgment against
Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii for her court costs,
including interpreter fees, with the costs taxed against Defenda
Shafaii Investments and aj Shafaii, jointly and severally.
The Court previously found that Defendant Part and Reception
Center, Inc. is the general partner of Defendant Sha Investments
The Court therefore ORDERS that Defendant Party and Reception
Center Inc. is jointly and severally liable for all sums awarded to
either Plaintiff and against Defendant Shafaii Investments
35 Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover a judgment against Defendant
Part and Reception Center, Inc or sums awarded to Plaintiff Bonilla
and against Defendant Sha Investments, jointly and severally.
Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover a judgment against
Defendant Part and Reception Center, Inc or sums awarded t
Plaintiff Angelino and against Defendant Sha Investments, jointly
and severally.
37- Any relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.
38. This is a final judgment, disposing of all claims and all parties, and is
appealable.
SIGNED , 20
orable Judge Presiding
Preview
CAUSE NO - 2018 Melania Estela Rivera Bonilla In the District Court of Harris County, Texas Shafaii Investments, Ltd., Raj Shafaii, and Party and Reception Center, Inc. 113th Judicial District CAUSE NO. 2018 84533 Alfredo Hernandez, Mary In the District Court of Andrade, Margarita Angelino Trujillo, Maria Sanchez, Luz Anguillon, and Erica Pichardo Harris County, Texas Shafaii Investments, Ltd., Party and Reception Center, Inc., and Raj Shafaii 133rd Judicial District inal Judgment The Court has considered Plaintiffs Motion to Disregard Jury Findings and Motion for Entry of Judgment and the Court makes the following rulings: The case was tried to a jury, with the jury returning its verdict on June 2, 2021. The jury s findings are set forth inthe C arge of the Court, on file with the Court The Charge of the Court is incorporated herein reference The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Melania Estela Rivera s motion to disregard estion Number of the Court s Charge. It is therefore ORDERED that the jurys answer to Question Number of th Court s Charge is disregarded and set side. The Court declare , as a matter of law, that Defendants Shafaii Investments, Ltd. and Raj Shafaii collected or attempted to collect a charge, fee, or xpense that was expressly authorized by the parties agreement or otherwise legally chargeable to Plaintiff Bonilla. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Margarita Angelino Trujillo s motion to disregard estion Number 16 of the Court s Charge. It is therefore ORDERED that the jurys answer to Question Number is disregarded and set side. The Court declare , as a matter of law, that Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii directly or indirectly engaged in debt collection with regard to Plaintiff Angelino. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Bon s motion to disregard estion Number of the Court s Charge It is therefore ORDERED that t jury s answer to Question Number 20 of the Court s Charge is set aside and disregarded. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Angelino s motion to disregard Question Number 22 of e Court s Charge It is therefore ORDERED that the jury s answer to Question Number 2 of the Court s Charge is set aside and disregarded. jury de affirmative findings in favor of Plaintiff Bonilla follows: Defendant Shafaii Investments agreed to insure or obtain insurance for Plaintiff Bonilla’s property (Question Number 1) efendant Shafaii Investments breached th agreement insure or obtain insurance for aintiff Bonilla’s property (Question Number Defendant Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii committed common law fraud and statutory fraud in their dealings with Plaintiff Bonilla (Question Numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6); Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by: (1) engaging in an unconscionable action or course of action that was a producing cause of Plaintiff Bonilla’s damages; (2) engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive acts that were a producing cause of Plaintiff Bonilla’s damages (Question Numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10 Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts engaged in debt collection in their dealings with Plaintiff Bonilla (Question Number ); Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts violated the Texas Debt Collection Act in their dealings with Plaintiff Bonilla by using threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce (Question Number and by using fraudulent, deceptive, misleading representations (Question Number Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii’s violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection Act were committed knowingly (Question Number Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $14,000, which represents the reasonable and necessary cost to repair or replace Plaintiff Bonilla’s property following the 2015 flood (Question Number 19) Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $18,000 for the mental anguish caused by endant Shafaii Investments in the past (Question Number 19); Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $12,500 for the mental anguish caused by Defendan Raj Shafaii in the past (Question Number 19); Plaintiff Bonilla was damaged in the amount of $5,000 for the mental anguish caused by endant Robert Kouts in the past (Question Number 19); Defendant Shafaii Investments’ should pay Plaintiff Bonilla $21,000 in treble damages for its knowing violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection Act (Question Number jury de affirmative findings in favor of Plaintiff Angelino follows: Defendant Shafaii Investments agreed to insure or obtain insurance for Plaintiff Angelino’s property (Question Number Defendant Shafaii Investments breached th agreement insure or obtain insurance for Plaintiff Angelino’s property (Question Number Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii committed common law fraud and statutory fraud in t r dealin with Plaintiff Angelino (Question Numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6); Defendan Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in their dealings with Plaintiff Angelino by: (1) engaging in an unconscionable action or course of action that was a producing cause of Plaintiff Angelino’s damages; (2) engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive acts that were a producing cause of Plaintiff Angelino’s damages (Question Numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10); Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii made a negligent misrepresentation that Plaintiff Angelino justifiably relied on (Question Number 11); Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii violated the Texas Debt Collection Act in their dealings with Plaintiff Angelino by using fair or unconscionable means e.g. collecting or attempting to collect interest or a charge, fee, or expense incidental to an obligation unless the interest or charge, fee, or expense was expressly authorized by the agreement creating the obligation or legally chargeable to Plaintiff Angelino (Question Number 17) Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii’s violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection Act were committed knowingly (Question Number Plaintiff Angelino was damaged in the amou t of $20,000 which represents the reasonable and necessary cost to repair or replace Angelino’s property following the 201 flood (Question Number 21); Plaintiff Angelino was damaged in the amou t of $20,000 for the mental anguish caused by Shafaii Investments in the past (Question Number 21); Plaintiff Angelino was damaged in the amou t of $19,500 for the mental anguish caused by Raj Shafaii in the past (Question Number 21); Defendant Shafaii Investments’ should pay $21,000 for its knowing violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection Act (Question Number 26) 10. The jury also awarded Plaintiff Bonilla attorney fees in the following amounts: (1) $75,000 for trial as to Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii; (2) $25,000 for trial as to Defendant Robert Kouts; $40,000 for representation through appeal to the court of appeals as to all Defendants; (4) $10,000 for representation at the petition for review stage in the Texas Supreme Court as to all Defendants; (5) $20,000 for representation at the merits briefing stage in the Texa Supreme Court as to all Defendants; and (6) $10,000 for representation through oral argument and the completion of proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court as to all Defendants (Question Number 27). The jury also awarded Plain Angelino attorney fees in the following amounts: (1) $ ,000 for trial as to Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii; (2) $40,000 for representation through appeal to the court of appeals as Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii $10,000 for representation at the petition for review stage in the Texas Supreme Court as Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii; ( ) $20,000 for representation at the merits briefing stage in the Texas Supreme Court as Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii; and ( ) $10,000 for representation through oral argument and the completion of proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court as Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii (Question Number 27). Court ders and declares that Plaintiff Bonill have and recover a judgment against Defendant Shafaii Investments for $32,000 in actual damages $21,000 in treble damages 13 Court ders and declares that Plaintiff Bonill have and recover a judgment against Defendant Raj Shafaii for $26,500 in actual damages 14 Court orders and declares that Plaintiff Bonilla have and recover a judgment against Defendants Shafaii I vestments and Raj Shafaii, jointly and severally, for $75,000 in attorney fees for trial, $40,000 in conditional attorney fees for an appeal to the court of appeals, and ,000 in conditional attorney fees for proceedings before the Texas Supreme Court. 15: urt ders and declares that Plaintiff Bonill have and recover a judgment against Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and t Kouts, jointly and severally, for an additional $5,000 in actual damages, and an additional 5,000 in attorney fees for trial, $40,000 in conditional attorney fees for an appeal to the court of appeals, and ,000 in conditional attorney fees for proceedings before the Texas Supreme Court. 16 urt ders and declares that Plain Angelino have and recover a judgment against Defendant Shafaii Investments for $40,000 in actual damages, and $21,000 in treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 17: urt ders and declares that Plain Angelino have and recover a judgment against Defendant Raj aii for $39,500 in actual damages. 18 urt ders and declares that Plain Angelino have and recover judgment ainst Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii, jointly and several , for $50,000 in attorney fees for trial, $40,000 in conditional appellate fees for an appeal to the court of appeals, and $40,000 in conditional attorney fees for proceedings before the Texas Supreme Court. 19 The Court declare Defendants Shafaii Investments, Shafaii, and Kouts were debt collectors in their dealings with Plaintiff Bonilla Defendants Shafaii Investments, Shafaii, and Kouts are permanently enjoined and restrained from foreclosing on Plaintiff Bonillas rea property for any default that may have occurred _n or before June 2, endants hafaii Investments, Shafaii, and Kouts are permanently enjoined from falsely accusing Plaintiff Bonilla of fraud or any other crime in connection with her execution of the insurance dated October 19, 20 in the amount of $28,770.09 Defendants Shafaii Investments, Shafaii, and Kouts are permanently enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect late fees from Plaintiff Bonilla for any payments less than 10 days late. Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts are permanently enjoined from misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of any consumer debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff Bonilla. Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts are permanently enjoined from representing that any consumer debt allegedly owed by Plain Bonilla may be increased by the addition of attorney fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if a written contract or statute does not authorize the additional fees or charge. 25 Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Robert Kouts are permanently enjoined from using any false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt from Plain Bonilla. The Court declare Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii Shafaii were debt collectors in their dealings with Plain Angelino 27. Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii are permanently enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect late fees from Plaintiff Angelino for any payments less than 10 days late. 28 Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover against prejudgment interest on all sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five percent per annum, beginning on February 5, 2018, and continuing until the date this Final udgment is signed. Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover post judgment interest on all sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five percent r annum, beginning the d y after this Final udgment is signed and continuing until all amounts awarded in this Final Judgment are paid. Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover against prejudgment interest on all sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five percent per annum, beginning November 2 , 2018, and continuing until the date this Final udgment is signed. 31 Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover post judgment interest on all sums awarded in this judgment at the judgment rate of five percent eran , beginning the d y after this Final udgment is signed and continuing until all amounts ard in this Final Judgment are paid. Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover a judgment against Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Ro t Kouts for her court costs, including interpreter fees, with the costs taxed against Defendants Shafaii Investments, Raj Shafaii, and Ro t Kouts, jointly and severally. Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover a judgment against Defendants Shafaii Investments and Raj Shafaii for her court costs, including interpreter fees, with the costs taxed against Defenda Shafaii Investments and aj Shafaii, jointly and severally. The Court previously found that Defendant Part and Reception Center, Inc. is the general partner of Defendant Sha Investments The Court therefore ORDERS that Defendant Party and Reception Center Inc. is jointly and severally liable for all sums awarded to either Plaintiff and against Defendant Shafaii Investments 35 Plaintiff Bonilla shall have and recover a judgment against Defendant Part and Reception Center, Inc or sums awarded to Plaintiff Bonilla and against Defendant Sha Investments, jointly and severally. Plaintiff Angelino shall have and recover a judgment against Defendant Part and Reception Center, Inc or sums awarded t Plaintiff Angelino and against Defendant Sha Investments, jointly and severally. 37- Any relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED. 38. This is a final judgment, disposing of all claims and all parties, and is appealable. SIGNED , 20 orable Judge Presiding