Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22STCV18171, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling
Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org
PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.
IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.
THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.
Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.
THANK YOU!
Case Number: 22STCV18171 Hearing Date: May 30, 2025 Dept: NCB
North Central District
|
arthur tsatryan, Plaintiff, v. polina tsatryan, et
al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 22STCV18171 Hearing
Date: May 30, 2025 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion for plaintiff’s request to order the
damages against defaulted defendant polina tsatryan to be assessed by jury |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Arthur Tsatryan (“Plaintiff,” as self-represented litigant) alleges
that he and Defendant Polina Tsatryan (“Ms. Tsatryan”) were married on August
5, 1987. Plaintiff and Ms. Tsatryan
purchased community property in the city of Tarzana in 1999. Plaintiff alleges that he filed a Petition
for Dissolution of Marriage on September 23, 2009 in LASC Case No. BD512645
(“Dissolution Action”). Plaintiff
alleges that Ms. Tsatryan engaged in actions to bankrupt him and that she did
not make mortgage payments on the Tarzana property, did not pay legal fees,
etc. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
Steven Fernandez (“Mr. Fernandez”), Maya Shulman (“Ms. Shulman”), and S. David
Kozich (“Mr. Kozich”) were Ms. Tsatryan’s former attorneys in the Dissolution
Action.
Plaintiff alleges judgment was entered in the Dissolution Action on May
21, 2015. He alleges that since
September 2015, Ms. Tsatryan has litigated a procedurally improper complaint in
the Family Law Court. He alleges that
Ms. Tsatryan, with the aid of Mr. Fernandez, filed legal documents against him
on March 11, 2016 and June 9, 2016.
(Compl., ¶¶32, 36.) He also
alleges Ms. Tsatryan and Mr. Fernandez accused Plaintiff and his family members
of fraud. (Id., ¶38.) On June 7, 2017, Ms. Tsatryan filed a substitution
of attorney, substituting Ms. Shulman as her attorney. (Id., ¶39.) He alleges that Ms. Tsatryan and Ms. Shulman
engaged in fraudulent acts in the Dissolution Action. (Id., ¶¶40-45.) Ms. Shulman was relieved as counsel for Ms.
Tsatryan on November 3, 2017. (Id.,
¶58.) On November 28, 2017, Mr. Kozich
substituted in as Ms. Tsatryan’s counsel and Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Kozich
engaged in unlawful acts. (Id.,
¶¶60-61.)
The complaint, filed June 3, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud
against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, and Mr. Kozich; (2) defamation against Ms.
Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez; (3) malicious prosecution
against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez; (4)
conspiracy against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez;
(5) IIED against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez; and
(6) punitive damages against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr.
Fernandez.
On August 30, 2022, the default of Defendant Polina Tsatryan was
entered.
B.
Motion on Calendar
On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to request an order that
damages against defaulted Defendant Polina Tsatryan be assessed by a jury.
The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to
CCP § 585(b).
CCP § 585(b) states:
Judgment may be
had, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint, as follows:
…
(b) In other
actions, if the defendant has been served, other than by publication, and no
answer, demurrer, notice of motion to strike of the character specified in subdivision (f), notice of motion to
transfer pursuant to Section 396b, notice of motion to dismiss pursuant to
Article 2 (commencing with Section 583.210) of Chapter 1.5 of Title 8, notice
of motion to quash service of summons or to stay or dismiss the action pursuant
to Section 418.10 or notice of the filing of a petition for writ of mandate as
provided in Section 418.10 has been filed with the clerk of the court within
the time specified in the summons, or within
further time as may be allowed, the clerk, upon written application of the
plaintiff, shall enter the default of the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter
may apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint. The
court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render
judgment in the plaintiff's favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount
stated in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the
statement provided for by Section 425.115, as appears by the evidence to be just. If the taking of
an account, or the proof of any fact, is necessary to enable the court to give
judgment or to carry the judgment into effect, the court may take the account
or hear the proof, or may, in its discretion, order a reference for that
purpose. If the action is for the recovery of damages, in whole or in part, the
court may order the damages to be assessed by a jury; or if, to determine the
amount of damages, the examination of a long account is involved, by a reference as above provided.
(CCP § 585(b).)
In the memorandum of points and
authorities, Plaintiff argues that Ms. Tsatryan’s default has been entered, he
cites to CCP § 585(b), and then he cites to the California Code of Judicial
Ethics, Canon 3D(2) regarding the misconduct of a lawyer and Canon 3(D)(1)
regarding a judge’s knowledge of another judge who violates the Code of
Judicial Ethics. (Mot. at 3:2-20.) Plaintiff then argues that “[i]t has been
discovered that court officers aided and abetted Polina in stealing and holding
Arthur’s property and funds. Officers of the Court egregiously deprived Arthur
of due process and the right to a fair trial.”
(Id. at 3:21-23.)
Plaintiff has not provided any
further information regarding a lawyer or judge who engaged in misconduct or
violated the code. This Court has not
made any such findings against a lawyer or a judicial officer in connection
with this case. Further, even if
Plaintiff could establish that such an adverse finding was made against a
lawyer or judge, Plaintiff has not shown how this would invoke the Court’s
discretion to have Plaintiff’s damages assessed by a jury.
Plaintiff has not shown why a jury
must assess damages, as opposed to damages being assessed by the Court through
the procedures against a defaulted defendant.
For these reasons, the motion is
denied.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to request
an order that damages against defaulted Defendant Polina Tsatryan be assessed
by a jury is denied.
Plaintiff shall provide
notice of this order.
DATED: May 30, 2025 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court