On May 26, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Av Automotive, Inc.,
Vartanian, Arsen H,
Portillo, Edgar,
and
Does 1-60,
Does 1 Through 35,
Vartanian, Vahak,
for Fraud Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
FERRIS R7 BRITTON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
A Professional Corporation COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Michael R. Weinstein (SBN 106464) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Scott H. Toothacre (SBN 146530)
2/20/2024 2:46 PM
Elyssa K. Kulas (SBN 3 17559)
501 West Broadway, Suite 1450 By: Aradelsi Rizo, DEPUTY
San Diego, California 92 1 01
©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A
Telephone: (6 1 9) 233-3 1 31
Fax: (619) 232-9316
mweinstein@ferrisbritton.com
stoothacre@ferrisbritton.com
ekulas@ferrisbritton.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ARSEN H. VARTANIAN
AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC. and
Cross—Defendant EDGAR PORTILLO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO-RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT
ARSEN H. VARTANIAN, an individual; Case N0. CIVSB2210697
AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a California
Corporation, Judge: Hon. Janet M. Frangie
Plaintiffs, REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN
VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—K
V. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS AND
VAHAK VARTANIAN, an individual, PRAYER FROM VAHAK VARTANIAN’S
doing business as Vartanian on Wheels and CROSS-COMPLAINT
OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO
VOW Automotive; and DOES 1 through 35,
inclusive, DATE: March 19, 2024
TIME: 8:30 am
Defendants. DEPT: R17
AND ALL CROSS-RELATED MATTERS (Plaintiffs’ Counsel Appearing Remotely)
Action Filed: May 26, 2022
Trial Date: Not Yet Set
1
REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER
FROM VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES
ALLEGATIONS
On 0r about December 1, 2023, Cross—Defendants Arsen Vartanian and Edgar Portillo filed and
served upon Cross-Complainant Vahak Vartanian, a Motion to Strike the punitive damages allegations
©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A
in the Cross—Complaint. The matter was set to be heard on January 16, 2024; however, the Court Clerk
served a Clerk’s Notice of Continuance, 0n the Court’s Own Motion, of the Motion t0 Strike filed by
Defendant Arsen Vartanian and Edgar Portillo on December 1, 2023.
Vahak’s opposition papers do not change the fact that he has failed t0 plead adequate facts that
ifproven by clear and convincing evidence would support a claim for punitive damages. He asserts that
he has alleged “conduct of a criminal character” Which supports his claim for punitive damages. That
conduct, he alleges is hacking and theft 0f emails. Such conduct does not support a claim for punitive
damages.
Claims for punitive damages are disfavored in California. (Las Palmas Assocs. v. Las Palmas
Center Assocs. (1991) 235 Ca1.App.3d 1220, 1258). In order to state a claim for punitive damages, a
plaintiff must allege facts that establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has
engaged in oppression, fraud or malice that constitutes despicable conduct. (Ca. CiV. Code 3294; Stewart
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—K
v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1 993) 17 Cal.App.4th 468, 482). Conclusory allegations that seek punitive
damages are improper; rather a plaintiff must allege specific facts that meet the clear and convincing
OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO
standard as set forth in California Civil Codes Section 3294. A plaintiff must allege that the defendant
acted With oppression, fraud, 0r malice, for example, that the defendant had the intent to inflict injury or
destroy reputation. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Ca1.App.4th 1033, 1041-42).
(1) ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff
0r despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious
disregard 0f the rights or safety of others.
(2) ‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship
in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.
(3) ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact
known t0 the defendant with the intention 0n the party 0f the defendant thereby depriving a
person 0f property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
2
REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER
FROM VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
February 20, 2024
Case Filing Date
May 26, 2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED FERRIS R7 BRITTON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA A Professional Corporation COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Michael R. Weinstein (SBN 106464) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Scott H. Toothacre (SBN 146530) 2/20/2024 2:46 PM Elyssa K. Kulas (SBN 3 17559) 501 West Broadway, Suite 1450 By: Aradelsi Rizo, DEPUTY San Diego, California 92 1 01 ©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A Telephone: (6 1 9) 233-3 1 31 Fax: (619) 232-9316 mweinstein@ferrisbritton.com stoothacre@ferrisbritton.com ekulas@ferrisbritton.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARSEN H. VARTANIAN AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC. and Cross—Defendant EDGAR PORTILLO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO-RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT ARSEN H. VARTANIAN, an individual; Case N0. CIVSB2210697 AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a California Corporation, Judge: Hon. Janet M. Frangie Plaintiffs, REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—K V. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS AND VAHAK VARTANIAN, an individual, PRAYER FROM VAHAK VARTANIAN’S doing business as Vartanian on Wheels and CROSS-COMPLAINT OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO VOW Automotive; and DOES 1 through 35, inclusive, DATE: March 19, 2024 TIME: 8:30 am Defendants. DEPT: R17 AND ALL CROSS-RELATED MATTERS (Plaintiffs’ Counsel Appearing Remotely) Action Filed: May 26, 2022 Trial Date: Not Yet Set 1 REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER FROM VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS On 0r about December 1, 2023, Cross—Defendants Arsen Vartanian and Edgar Portillo filed and served upon Cross-Complainant Vahak Vartanian, a Motion to Strike the punitive damages allegations ©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A in the Cross—Complaint. The matter was set to be heard on January 16, 2024; however, the Court Clerk served a Clerk’s Notice of Continuance, 0n the Court’s Own Motion, of the Motion t0 Strike filed by Defendant Arsen Vartanian and Edgar Portillo on December 1, 2023. Vahak’s opposition papers do not change the fact that he has failed t0 plead adequate facts that ifproven by clear and convincing evidence would support a claim for punitive damages. He asserts that he has alleged “conduct of a criminal character” Which supports his claim for punitive damages. That conduct, he alleges is hacking and theft 0f emails. Such conduct does not support a claim for punitive damages. Claims for punitive damages are disfavored in California. (Las Palmas Assocs. v. Las Palmas Center Assocs. (1991) 235 Ca1.App.3d 1220, 1258). In order to state a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege facts that establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has engaged in oppression, fraud or malice that constitutes despicable conduct. (Ca. CiV. Code 3294; Stewart NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—K v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1 993) 17 Cal.App.4th 468, 482). Conclusory allegations that seek punitive damages are improper; rather a plaintiff must allege specific facts that meet the clear and convincing OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO standard as set forth in California Civil Codes Section 3294. A plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted With oppression, fraud, 0r malice, for example, that the defendant had the intent to inflict injury or destroy reputation. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Ca1.App.4th 1033, 1041-42). (1) ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff 0r despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard 0f the rights or safety of others. (2) ‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (3) ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known t0 the defendant with the intention 0n the party 0f the defendant thereby depriving a person 0f property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. 2 REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER FROM VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT