Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: SC126848, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC126848    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200

BACKGROUND

            This is a malicious prosecution case.  Plaintiffs Siamak Michael Rahimi and Rahimi & Co. (the “Rahimi parties”) were accountants of Defendants Behrouz Farzad, Nasrin Farzad, Ali Farzad, Farbod Farzad, Elite Pros, Inc. and Lyons Capital Investments LLC (the “Farzad parties”).  The Farbod parties sued the Rahimi parties for voluntarily producing their tax-related documents in a separate action during a deposition and without a subpoena.  Their complaint alleged claims for invasion of right to privacy, breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence (the “underlying action”).  The trial court in the underlying action granted a special motion to strike the Farbod parties’ complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the trial court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal.  The Rahimi parties then sued the Farbod parties for malicious prosecution, which is the case currently pending before this Court.

            This hearing is on Defendants Behrouz Farzad, Nasrin Farzad and Elite Pros, Inc.’s motion for protective order.  Defendants seek an order precluding Plaintiffs from making reference to, or mention of, or presenting any evidence concerning their financial condition or net worth unless and until the trier of fact has returned a verdict for Plaintiffs awarding actual damages against Defendants and has made a finding that Defendants are guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.  Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.        

DISCUSSION

Upon request of a defendant, severance of the issue of punitive damages is mandatory under Civ. Code § 3295(d):

The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion pursuant to Civ. Code § 3295(d).  Evidence pertaining to Defendants’ present profits or financial condition shall be deemed inadmissible until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiffs awarding damages and finding that Defendants are guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Civ. Code § 3294.  The amount of punitive damages, if any, is to be determined after liability has been established.       

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2022                                       ___________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court