A decades-long family feud over the division of assets has escalated into a legal battle involving allegations of malicious prosecution. On December 17, 2020, Pradeep Kantilal Khatri and his wife Kokila filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court against Pradeep's brother Rajeshkumar Khatri and his attorneys from the law firm Fox, Shjeflo, Hartley & Babu, LLP.
The dispute traces back to the death of their mother Vidyagauri Kantilal Khatri in 2018, who left all her assets to Pradeep. Rajeshkumar contested this will and other testamentary documents, claiming undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. Following a lengthy trial in San Mateo County Superior Court (referred to as "Khatri III"), the court ruled in favor of Pradeep and awarded him substantial attorney fees and costs. The court found Rajeshkumar's claims frivolous, stating that he proceeded with negligible evidence. In response, Pradeep filed a malicious prosecution complaint against Rajeshkumar and his attorneys.
The malicious prosecution complaint alleges that no reasonable person or attorney would have believed there were grounds to contest Vidya’s estate planning documents from 2004 to 2013 based on lack of capacity or undue influence. It claims that even Roger’s expert neuropsychologist could not support these allegations. The complaint further asserts that Roger was motivated by dissatisfaction with prior judgments and aimed to force Pradeep into an unfavorable settlement.
Roger and his attorneys filed special motions to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to prevent meritless lawsuits that infringe on free speech rights. However, the trial court denied these motions, finding that Peter had made a prima facie case for prevailing on his malicious prosecution claim. The court noted significant findings from previous litigation (Khatri III) that supported Peter’s case.
Peter seeks damages for the alleged malicious prosecution, including attorney fees incurred during the defense of the will contest. He argues that Roger pursued the litigation out of malice and without probable cause, aiming to overturn previous unfavorable judgments rather than seeking justice.
The case is being closely watched due to its implications for family disputes involving significant assets and long-standing grievances. Representing Peter are attorneys who argue that Roger’s actions were driven by improper motives rather than legitimate legal concerns.
Judge Jackson presided over this matter in Alameda County Superior Court under Case ID A164829/Khatri v. Fox, Shjeflo, Hartley & Babu, LLP; A164883/Khatri v. Khatri.