Gul Jaisinghani v. Anil Sharma, et al.

California enforced a disputed oral agreement even though it found the agreement was entered to defraud a bank in violation of federal law, stating: “Even if in the course of doing so, the parties made a representation to a lender that would be treated as a material misrepresentation under federal law, this does not render their joint venture agreement unenforceable as a whole.” App. B., at 19a-20a. Sharma sued Jaisinghani on an alleged “joint venture” agreement to transfer title to Jaisinghani so they could defraud the bank to obtain a loan to develop the property by pretending Jaisinghani was the sole owner, when in fact they both owned the property, under Sharma’s claim. The complaint and jury instructions stipulated that this was an integral part of the alleged “joint venture” agreement. In addition, the trial court unjustifiably excluded or limited the testimony of two critical witnesses, App. B, at 25a-26a, and entered a judgment for duplicative damages. App. B., at 26a-28a. Accordingly, the questions presented are:

1. Given that a conspiracy to commit bank fraud is clearly illegal under federal law, as highlighted in the recent Manafort case, does a state’s enforcement of a disputed oral agreement to violate federal banking law violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution?

2. Does a state’s exclusion of a witness violate a party’s constitutional right to due process and a fair trial, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

3. Does a state’s entry of judgment for duplicative damages violate a party’s constitutional right to substantive due process to be free from arbitrary state court decisions, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?