Aghaian v. Minassian

• Decision Date: 24 May 2021
• Docket Number: B296287
• Citation: 64 Cal.App.5th 603,279 Cal.Rptr.3d 191
• Parties: Seda Galstian AGHAIAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Shahen MINASSIAN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

64 Cal.App.5th 603

279 Cal.Rptr.3d 191

Seda Galstian AGHAIAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.Shahen MINASSIAN, Defendant and Appellant.

B296287

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Filed May 24, 2021

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Roy G. Weatherup, Los Angeles, and Allison A. Arabian Hill, Costa Mesa; Joshua R. Furman Law Corporation and Joshua R. Furman, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant.

Horvitz & Levy LLP, Mitchell C. Tilner and Steven S. Fleischman, Burbank; Aldisert Law, Gregory J. Aldisert, Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump and David W. Swift, Santa Monica, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

BIGELOW, P.J.

Seda Galstian Aghaian and Aida Galstian Norhadian (together, Plaintiffs) brought an action against Shahen Minassian,¹ alleging he improperly obtained money and property from their deceased parents. Following a bench trial, the court concluded Minassian was unjustly enriched and entered judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor for more than $34 million. On appeal, Minassian asserts the trial court should have granted his inconvenient forum motion, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations, the court erred by imposing discovery sanctions, and Plaintiffs are barred from recovery because the contract underlying their claims was illegal. We reject Minassian's arguments and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ father, Gagik Galstian, was a successful businessman in Iran for many years. During that time, he and Plaintiffs’ mother, Knarik Galstian, obtained significant real estate holdings. The Galstians fled Iran in 1978 during the unrest that led to the Iranian revolution.

In 1996, Gagik entered into a contract with Minassian—who was a family friend—to try to reclaim some of his properties in Iran. To effectuate the agreement, the Galstians executed powers of attorney granting Minassian authority to act on their behalf in reclaiming and selling the properties. Gagik and Knarik died in 2012.

In January 2013, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Minassian, alleging he conspired with another individual to steal their parents’ properties and defraud them out of tens of millions of dollars. Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and as trustees of their parents’ trust. Their operative complaint asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment and money had and received.

The case proceeded to a bench trial in 2017, after which the court issued a 61-page statement of decision finding in Plaintiffs’ favor. The court summarized its conclusions as follows: "[B]y at least 2006, with a few isolated exceptions, it appears that Minassian began what was essentially an effort to acquire all of the Galstian properties for himself and, in the instance of any sale, to keep all, or some, of the money received for himself. In order to accomplish this, he failed to advise the Galstians that he had utilized the power of attorney he had been given by Galstian to transfer title to nearly all of the real estate assets to himself, failed to truthfully advise them of the status of the properties and failed to account for sales from which he kept some or all of the proceeds for himself. He has engaged in numerous transactions which he has not described or explained even up to the present time, often stating that he does not remember. He also has had evidentiary sanctions imposed because of his failure to produce documents and the net result of the purported lack of memory and the failure to produce records substantially impacted the court's, and the Plaintiffs’, ability to reconstruct the events. Whatever his intentions were when he and Galstian made their agreement, he has deliberately and systematically taken Plaintiffs’ property, and many proceeds therefrom, for himself on numerous occasions."

The court entered judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor for $34,506,989 plus interest. Minassian appealed.

DISCUSSION

I. The Court Properly Denied Minassian's Renewed Inconvenient Forum Motion

Minassian contends the trial court erred in denying his renewed motion to dismiss or stay based on inconvenient forum. We disagree.

A. Background

After Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, Minassian moved to dismiss or stay the action based on inconvenient forum. He argued the Iranian civil court would provide a suitable forum because the action concerned a dispute among Iranian citizens over property located in Iran. Minassian also represented that Plaintiffs had already participated in legal proceedings against him in Iran involving the same claims. The trial court stayed the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a).²

Plaintiffs appealed and we reversed in Aghaian v. Minassian (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 427, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 822 ( Aghaian I ), holding Iran is not a suitable alternative forum. We explained the "evidence is overwhelming that Iranian courts discriminate against women and non-Muslims. Among other things, Plaintiffs submitted evidence that the testimony of a woman counts for half the value of that of a man, and that women are not treated equally before the courts, particularly in personal status matters relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody, and only men can serve as judicial officers.... Two of the three Plaintiffs here are women and the Galstian family members are not Muslim. Leaving aside whether Iranian courts are independent or corrupt, this is sufficient to show Iran is not a suitable alternative forum. This is the ‘rare circumstance’ in which an alternative forum ‘provides no remedy at all.’ " ( Aghaian I , supra , 234 Cal.App.4th at pp. 435–436, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 822.)

On remand, Minassian filed a "renewed" motion to dismiss or stay based on inconvenient forum. He argued the motion was warranted because, while the initial appeal was pending, Plaintiffs filed a new civil lawsuit against him in Iran asserting the same claims. In doing so, Minassian insisted, Plaintiffs waived any argument that Iran is an inadequate forum.

Plaintiffs urged the court to deny Minassian's motion on multiple grounds, including under the law of the case doctrine. Plaintiffs also represented that the Iranian action sought only to quiet title to a subset of properties at issue in this case. Moreover, unlike the present case, they did not seek compensatory damages in Iran.

The court denied the renewed motion, explaining the "key facts" underlying our decision in Aghaian I —that women and non-Muslim parties are not afforded equal rights and due process in Iranian courts—had not changed since Minassian's first motion. The court further pointed out that Minassian cited no authority showing an unsuitable forum becomes suitable by virtue of the plaintiff submitting to its jurisdiction.

B. Relevant Law

The doctrine of inconvenient forum (often referred to as forum non conveniens) allows courts to "exercise their discretionary power to decline to proceed in those causes of action which they conclude, on satisfactory evidence, may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere." ( Price v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 577, 584, 268 P.2d 457.) The doctrine is codified in two statutes— sections 418.10 and 410.30 —which differ as to the timing of the motion.

Minassian filed his motion under section 418.10, which permits a defendant, "on or before the last day of his or her time to plead," to move to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. ( § 418.10, subd. (a).) If the court denies the motion, the defendant may file a petition for writ of mandate challenging the order. ( § 418.10, subd. (c).) If the defendant does so, the time to plead is extended until after the court rules on the petition. (Ibid .)

A defendant who has already entered a general appearance may file an inconvenient forum motion under section 410.30. ( Britton v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 127, 134–135, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 487 ; Global Financial Distributors Inc. v. Superior Court (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 179, 192, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 48.) Section 410.30 provides: "When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just." ( § 410.30, subd. (a).)

"In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a ‘suitable’ place for trial." ( Stangvik v. Shiley Inc . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 819 P.2d 14.) If the alternative forum is suitable, the court then considers the private and public interests in retaining the action for trial in California. ( Ibid . ) If the private and public interests weigh in favor of a suitable alternative forum, the trial court generally has discretion to either dismiss or stay the action on any conditions that may be just. ( § 410.30, subd. (a) ; see Laboratory Specialists Internat., Inc. v. Shimadzu Scientific Instruments, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 755, 764, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 494 ; Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976) 15 Cal.3d 853, 857, 126 Cal.Rptr. 811, 544 P.2d 947.) "The burden of proof is on the defendant, as the party asserting forum non conveniens." ( Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 197, 204, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 366.)

C. Analysis

1. Minassian May Challenge the Order Denying His Inconvenient Forum Motion

At the outset, Plaintiffs urge us to adopt a rule that an order denying an inconvenient forum motion cannot be challenged on appeal from a final judgment. We decline the invitation.

"The right to appeal in California is generally governed by the ‘one final judgment’ rule, under which most interlocutory orders are not appealable." ( In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 754, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 153, 248 P.3d 681.) Such orders instead may be challenged on appeal of the final judgment. ( In re Marriage of Grimes...