Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank, A.G.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 06-774 MMM(CWx).,CV 06-774 MMM(CWx). |
| Citation | 526 F.Supp.2d 1068 |
| Parties | Varoujan DEIRMENJIAN, Aris Aghvazarian, Robert Dabaghian, Marguerid Jeredjian, Katia Kermoyan, Paylig Kermoyan, and Raffi Bakian, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, as Well on Behalf of the General Public and Acting in the Public Interest, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK, A.G., Dresdner Bank, A.G., and Does 1-100, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Brian S. Kabateck, Richard L. Kellner, Kabateck Brown Kellner, Mark J. Geragos, Shelley Kaufman, Geragos & Geragos, Los Angeles, CA, Vartkes Yeghiayan, Yeghiayan & Associates, Glendale, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew Ryhs Davies, Louis B. Kimmelman, Allen and Overy, Jeffrey L. Nagel, Terry Myers, Gibbons, New York City, Haley Melisse McIntosh, Wallace M. Allan, O'Melveny and Myers, Adam Pines, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas R. Valen, Gibbons PC, Newark, NJ, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
On January 12, 2006, Varoujan Deirmenjian and six other plaintiffs commenced this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Deutsche Bank, A.G., Dresdner, Bank, A.G., and certain fictitious defendants (collectively, "defendants" or "German Bank Defendants"). On February 10, 2006, the action was removed to this court.1
Plaintiffs bring the action on their own behalf, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals and the general public, to recover money and property purportedly withheld by defendants during the Armenian Genocide.2 Plaintiffs allege that they are the "rightful heirs" of that money and property and seek recovery of all deposited assets not returned, a full accounting, and disgorgement by the German Bank Defendants of interest and profits derived from the deposited assets. Plaintiffs also seek—on behalf of named plaintiff Raffi Bakian and the putative members of Class B—the return of all looted assets received by the German Bank Defendants.3 With respect to these assets, they plead state law causes of action for breach of special duty; expropriation and conversion; unjust enrichment; negligence; constructive trust; money had and received; and an accounting.4 It is these claims to which the current motion is addressed.
On September 11, 2006, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. As relevant here, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss Bakian's, claim on behalf of the putative Class B plaintiffs, holding that (1) that under California Code of Civil Procedure § 361, the state's "borrowing statute,"5 California statutes of limitations might apply to the Class B claims if those claims accrued while the Class B plaintiffs were citizens of California,6 but (2) that even if this were the case, the Class B claims were time-barred under California law, and the complaint contained insufficient allegations to toll the limitations period or estop defendants from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.7 The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend to plead facts that would support tolling or estoppel.8
On October 16, 2006, plaintiffs filed their first amended class action complaint. On November 28, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended Class B claims, arguing, inter alia, (1) that the amended complaint failed to rectify the pleading deficiencies noted by the court in its September 11, 2006 order, and (2) that a recently enacted California statute, which purports to extend the statute of limitations on the claims, and which plaintiffs cite in their complaint, is unconstitutional.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many ethnic Armenians lived in the Ottoman Turkish Empire.9 Plaintiffs alleges that, in 1910, a regime known as the Young Turks came to power and began to "cleanse" the Empire of all non-Turks, including ethnic Armenians.10 Initially, this effort purportedly took the form of forced deportations.11 Plaintiffs assert that, "[w]ith the onset of World War I, [however], the government of the Ottoman Turkish Empire launched a premeditated, systemic campaign to destroy ethnic Armenians through a process of massacre and deportation, which is now recognized as the Armenian Genocide."12 Between April 1915 and 1923, an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million Armenians were allegedly killed; ninety percent of those deported allegedly perished.13
In conjunction with this alleged program of forced relocation and extermination, the Young Turks purportedly transferred Armenian-owned businesses to Turks.14 In May 1915, the Young Turks allegedly issued a decree stating that all goods belonging to Armenians were to be considered abandoned property.15 Commencing January 1, 1916, the Ottoman Empire's Minister of Commerce and Agriculture purportedly sentletters to financial institutions operating within the Empire, advising that the government had established Tasfiye Commissionou, or Liquidation Commissions.16 The financial institutions were directed to transfer all Armenian assets in their possession to the Commissions,17 which were to inventory the property—including land, bank deposits, and goods found in homes, churches, monasteries, and schools—and secure it under the ownership and control of the Ottoman Empire.18 Plaintiffs allege that, in total, the Young Turks seized approximately five million Turkish gold pounds ($22,450,000 in 1915 value) from Armenians,19 which they subsequently transferred to the German Bank Defendants.20
Plaintiffs assert that the German Bank Defendants accepted the gold deposits knowing that the assets had been stolen from Armenians, or seized from their bank accounts, before or after they were killed.21 In return for the transfer of the gold deposits, the German Bank Defendants purportedly provided currency to the Young Turks for the purchase of war materiel,22 and sent some of the Armenian gold abroad as financial security for the Young Turk leaders.23 These activities allegedly generated enormous profits for the German Bank Defendants.24 Plaintiffs contend that—since the end of World War I—the German Bank Defendants have actively and affirmatively concealed the existence of the accounts that held the looted assets, affirmatively misrepresented their knowledge of the accounts, and deliberately obstructed efforts to identify the accounts and transfer the assets to their rightful owners.25
Raffi Bakian asserts that he is the rightful heir of both his paternal and maternal grandfathers, who were victims of the Armenian Genocide. He alleges that his grandfathers' business assets and household contents were confiscated by the government of Ottoman Turkey, and that they were transferred to and deposited with the German Bank Defendants.26 Bakian purports to represent a class of putative plaintiffs consisting of "[t]he rightful owners of looted assets forcibly taken by the government of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after 1875 and deposited with the GERMAN BANK DEFENDANTS, whose property has not been returned."27
Bakian contends that the Class B claims are not time-barred because, effective January 1, 2007, the California legislature extended the statute of limitations for actions seeking the recovery of "looted assets" by any "Armenian Genocide victim" or any "heir or beneficiary of an Armenian Genocide victim" who resides in California; the statute provides that such actions can be brought on or before December 31,2016.28 See 2006 Cal. Stats. ch. 443 (S.B.1524) (codified at CAL.CODE CIV. PROC. § 354.45). Alternatively, he pleads the following grounds for suspending the limitations bar: (1) fraudulent concealment and/or equitable estoppel, on the basis that defendants knew that the Young Turks had deposited assets looted from victims of the Armenian Genocide during the First World War in their institutions but actively concealed and denied the existence of such assets;29 and (2) equitable tolling and/or delayed discovery, on the basis that the substantial difficulties faced by Armenians who survived the genocide made it impossible for them to file the claims asserted in the complaint in a timely fashion.30
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only where there is either a "lack of a cognizable legal theory" or "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6), the court generally looks only to the face of the complaint and documents attached thereto. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir.1989).
The court must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true, and construe them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996); Mier v. Owens, 57 F.3d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1995). It need not, however, accept as true unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ____, ____, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connor v. Ford Motor Co.
...must raise the defense through a motion for summary judgment or at trial.’ " [66] at 79 (quoting Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank, A.G. , 526 F.Supp.2d 1068, 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ). The Court agrees and declines to dismiss any claims based on a statute of limitations defense."Dismissing a comp......
-
Teague v. Biotelemetry, Inc.
...constructive trust is a remedial device, not a substantive claim on which to base recovery...."); Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1077 n.36 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ("Constructive trust and accounting are remedies rather than causes of action...."); Stansfield v. Starkey, ......