Financial Analysis Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Damages Models

Plaintiffs Nathan Campos and Janet Garvey (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this putative class action alleging damages from being “deceived into making in-game purchases of deceptively marketed in-game items in the mobile application games Big Fish Casino and Jackpot Magic slots (collectively, “the Games”) and lost those purchases to the Games’ unlawful and unfair casino-style games of chance.”

Defendants Big Fish Games, Inc. and Product Madness, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Muhammad Khan.

Financial Analysis Expert Witness

Muhammad Anwar Khan has over 20 years of experience as a financial analyst and is currently the Head of Investment at Building Communities Initiative, a real estate developer located in Australia.

He analyzes investment opportunities for hotels, resorts, and government affordable housing projects,” and he has prior experience with investment banks doing “comprehensive financial analysis in a variety of industries.” Also, he has provided expert testimony in two prior cases, which involved banking and real estate under Islamic law. 

Get the full story on challenges to Muhammad Khan’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

First, Defendants challenged Khan’s qualifications as an expert opining on damages models in this case. Plaintiffs contended that Kahn “is undoubtedly qualified as a financial analyst and accountant” to provide an expert opinion for the “very limited purpose” on “whether certain damages models can be measured for class members using Defendants’ financial data.”

The Court agreed with Defendants. Plaintiffs offered no evidence of specific training, experience, or specialized knowledge Khan has that is relevant to his damages models examination in this case. Merely stating that Khan is “undoubtedly qualified” because he works as a “financial analyst and accountant” is conclusory and insufficient to qualify Khan as an expert witness.

Furthermore, Khan stating in his deposition that his expert declaration was “all drafted by” Plaintiffs’ counsel raised serious credibility and reliability questions that Plaintiffs did not respond to. 

The Court found that Plaintiffs have failed to show that Khan is qualified as an expert in this case.

Held

The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Muhammad Khan.

Key Takeaway:

Plaintiffs are not required to show that Khan has the exact specialized expertise to answer the issues here, but Plaintiffs do have the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is qualified based on his knowledge, skill, experience, training, and/or education for this Court to find him an expert with a reliable or appreciably helpful opinion for a jury.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Campos V. Big Fish Games
Docket Number:	2:22cv1806
Court Name:	United States District Court, Washington Western
Order Date:	November 10, 2025