Plaintiff Paramount Contractors & Developers, Inc. ("Paramount") respectfully moves this Court for an order excluding the expert testimony and report of Dr. Mehmet Sanli, Defendants' designated economic expert, on the grounds that his opinions are unreliable, speculative, and based on flawed methodology that does not satisfy the requirements of Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747.
On January 15, 2026, Defendants designated Dr. Sanli as their expert on economic damages. Dr. Sanli's report, dated February 28, 2026, opines that Paramount's claimed damages are "speculative and overstated" and offers an alternative damages calculation reducing Paramount's claim from $4.2 million to approximately $380,000.
Dr. Sanli's methodology suffers from three fundamental defects: (1) he improperly applies a "willing buyer-willing seller" valuation framework to signage rights that are not freely transferable on the open market; (2) he fails to account for the City's own valuation of the permits at issue, as established in the Henderson v. Pacific line of cases; and (3) his discount rate of 18% is unsupported by any comparable transaction data and appears to have been selected solely to minimize Paramount's recovery.
| Category | Paramount Expert | Dr. Sanli | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lost signage revenue | $2,840,000 | $210,000 | -$2,630,000 |
| Permit value diminution | $980,000 | $120,000 | -$860,000 |
| Consequential damages | $380,000 | $50,000 | -$330,000 |
| Total | $4,200,000 | $380,000 | -$3,820,000 |
Under Sargon, the trial court acts as a "gatekeeper" to exclude expert opinion that is based on "assumptions of fact without evidentiary support, or on speculative or conjectural factors." 55 Cal.4th at 770.
Expert testimony must be based on "reasons and a reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to the ultimate conclusion." Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1117.