DALLAS — A Dallas County jury awarded $46 million to a plaintiff in a family business feud over Cicis Pizza after a week filled with emotional testimony. The case centered on a conflict between cousins Anand Gala and Sunil Dharod, prompting jurors to deliberate for five hours before reaching their decision.
Gala, alongside his company Gala Capital Partners Cici’s, argued that he had been wronged by Dharod after their partnership deteriorated. The jury favored Gala, but the defense plans to contest whether Gala can recover on both of his claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, each worth $23 million. The final award will also include attorney fees.
In 2020, Dharod initiated the acquisition of Cicis Pizza for $11 million, contributing 70% of the capital, while Gala provided the remaining 30%. Following their partnership, the two restructured the business under the name Smiley Slice, with Dharod controlling the majority stake and Gala serving as chairman and CEO.
The case intensified when Gala accused Dharod of firing him shortly after the purchase, effectively consolidating control over Smiley Slice. Gala’s claims included breach of contract and fiduciary duty, as well as allegations of civil conspiracy. In response, Dharod filed counterclaims against Gala, alleging breach of fiduciary duty along with fraud.
The jury determined that Dharod and his affiliated entities failed to adhere to the operational agreement concerning management fees, resulting in a $20 million damage award to Smiley Slice. Additionally, the jury found that GCP Cici’s was entitled to $3,039,252 due to withheld distributions.
Further complicating the case, the jury awarded an additional $29,000 to GCP Cici’s for failure to provide necessary documents as stipulated in the operational agreement. The jury’s findings indicated that Dharod and his companies acted improperly by conditioning GCP Cici’s receipt of distributions on signing a general release and charged exorbitant management fees to Smiley Slice.
Gala’s attorney expressed satisfaction with the jury’s ruling, emphasizing that it affirmed Gala’s rights. According to the jury, Dharod’s entities were implicated in a conspiracy aimed at harming GCP Cici’s. However, Dharod’s counterclaims resulted in a total loss.
Discussions concerning attorney fees and the potential for further equitable relief, including reclassification of corporate structures, remain unresolved.
During closing arguments, Gala’s attorney highlighted the personal dynamics between the cousins and their respective power dynamics, framing it as a moral issue regarding Dharod’s treatment of Gala. In contrast, Dharod’s legal representative argued that the plaintiff’s perspective was attempting to vilify their client and urged the jury to focus on the contractual terms rather than emotional appeals.
As both sides weighed their options following the verdict, the emotional toll and complexities of the case remained evident. The judgment reflects not just a financial outcome but also the intricate relationships that often shape business partnerships.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and content may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by contacting contact@publiclawlibrary.org.