Preview
FERRIS R7 BRITTON
A Professional Corporation
Michael R. Weinstein (SBN 106464) ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Scott H. Toothacre (SBN 146530) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Elyssa K. Kulas (SBN 3 17559) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
501 West Broadway, Suite 1450 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
San Diego, California 92 1 01
2/20/2024 2:46 PM
©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A
Telephone: (6 1 9) 233-3 1 31
Fax: (619) 232-9316 By: Aradelsi Rizo, DEPUTY
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 DEMURRER TO VAHAK
VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
VAHAK VARTANIAN, an individual,
doing business as Vartanian on Wheels and DATE: March 19, 2024
OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO
VOW Automotive; and DOES 1 through 35, TIME: 8:30 am
inclusive, DEPT: R17
Defendants. (Plaintiffs’ Counsel Appearing Remotely)
AND ALL CROSS-RELATED MATTERS Action Filed: May 26, 2022
Trial Date: Not Yet Set
On December 1, 2023, Cross—Defendants, Arsen Vartanian and Edgar Portillo filed a Demurrer
t0 the Cross—Complaint of Vahak Vartanian. The Demurrer was t0 the first cause 0f action for Civil
Conspiracy on grounds that it fails to state a cause of action; t0 the Second cause of action for Conversion
on grounds that it fails to state a cause 0f action; and to the third cause of action for Intentional
1
REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
Interference with Contractual Relations on grounds it fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action as it fails to identify the particular contracts, how they were breached, When they were
breached, and only contains vague, uncertain, and conclusory allegations related to damages.
1. Vahak Vartanian Acknowledges Civil Conspiracy is Not a Standalone Tort in
©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A
California — Therefore the Demurrer to this COA Must Be Sustained.
The opposition concedes, as held in Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994)
7 Ca1.4th 503, 510-51 1, that Civil Conspiracy is not a standalone tort in California. (Def. Opp. Memo
P’s & A’s p. 2:20-21) Thus, the first cause of action for Civil Conspiracy must be sustained.
2. As t0 the Demurrer t0 the Second Cause 0f Action for Conversion: The Cross-
Complaint Demonstrates that this is A Claim Belonging t0 AV Automotive, Inc. and
Not Vahak and also Fails t0 Allege Requisite Interference with Property t0 Establish
the Elements 0f Conversion
Cross-Defendants demurred t0 the Second Cause 0f Action in the Cross-Complaint for
Conversion on grounds that if fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause of action under governing
law because 0f: (A) a lack 0f standing; and (B) a lack 0fthe element of dispossession. In his Opposition
Papers Vahak attempts to address the lack of dispossession argument but Wholly ignores the lack of
NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—K
standing argument.
A. Lack 0f Standing
OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO
Vahak’s Cross-Complaint alleges that “Vahak is the sole shareholder, and officer of Plaintiff, AV
AUTOMOTIVE, INC. (Vahak Cross—Complaint 11 7) According t0 Vahak’s Cross—Complaint Arsen was
listed as an officer 0f AV Automotive, Inc. (Vahak Cross—Complaint 11 9) Vahak asserts that he has standing
to bring this action as a personal cause 0f action versus a derivative cause 0f action because he alleged in
Paragraph 29 0f the Complaint that “Vahak had, and continues t0 have, rightful ownership of all AV Auto
Emails and corporate tax records.” (Vahak Cross—Complaint 1] 29) Vahak also alleges that “Portillo and/or
those working at his direction, began hacking into email accounts 0f AV Auto employees, and duplicating
and distributing private communications and records belonging t0 AVAuto. ” (Vahak Cross—Complaint 1]
1326-9, emphasis added.) Finally, Vahak alleges that he has been (not AV Automotive, Inc.) and Will
continue to be, damaged by this conversion. (Vahak Cross—Complaint 11
3 1)
2
REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
Preview
FERRIS R7 BRITTON A Professional Corporation Michael R. Weinstein (SBN 106464) ELECTRONICALLY FILED Scott H. Toothacre (SBN 146530) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Elyssa K. Kulas (SBN 3 17559) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 501 West Broadway, Suite 1450 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT San Diego, California 92 1 01 2/20/2024 2:46 PM ©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A Telephone: (6 1 9) 233-3 1 31 Fax: (619) 232-9316 By: Aradelsi Rizo, DEPUTY 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 DEMURRER TO VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT VAHAK VARTANIAN, an individual, doing business as Vartanian on Wheels and DATE: March 19, 2024 OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO VOW Automotive; and DOES 1 through 35, TIME: 8:30 am inclusive, DEPT: R17 Defendants. (Plaintiffs’ Counsel Appearing Remotely) AND ALL CROSS-RELATED MATTERS Action Filed: May 26, 2022 Trial Date: Not Yet Set On December 1, 2023, Cross—Defendants, Arsen Vartanian and Edgar Portillo filed a Demurrer t0 the Cross—Complaint of Vahak Vartanian. The Demurrer was t0 the first cause 0f action for Civil Conspiracy on grounds that it fails to state a cause of action; t0 the Second cause of action for Conversion on grounds that it fails to state a cause 0f action; and to the third cause of action for Intentional 1 REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT Interference with Contractual Relations on grounds it fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as it fails to identify the particular contracts, how they were breached, When they were breached, and only contains vague, uncertain, and conclusory allegations related to damages. 1. Vahak Vartanian Acknowledges Civil Conspiracy is Not a Standalone Tort in ©OOQONUl-bUJNr—A California — Therefore the Demurrer to this COA Must Be Sustained. The opposition concedes, as held in Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Ca1.4th 503, 510-51 1, that Civil Conspiracy is not a standalone tort in California. (Def. Opp. Memo P’s & A’s p. 2:20-21) Thus, the first cause of action for Civil Conspiracy must be sustained. 2. As t0 the Demurrer t0 the Second Cause 0f Action for Conversion: The Cross- Complaint Demonstrates that this is A Claim Belonging t0 AV Automotive, Inc. and Not Vahak and also Fails t0 Allege Requisite Interference with Property t0 Establish the Elements 0f Conversion Cross-Defendants demurred t0 the Second Cause 0f Action in the Cross-Complaint for Conversion on grounds that if fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause of action under governing law because 0f: (A) a lack 0f standing; and (B) a lack 0fthe element of dispossession. In his Opposition Papers Vahak attempts to address the lack of dispossession argument but Wholly ignores the lack of NNNNNNNNNr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—K standing argument. A. Lack 0f Standing OONONLh-waHO©OOflO\Lh-5UJNHO Vahak’s Cross-Complaint alleges that “Vahak is the sole shareholder, and officer of Plaintiff, AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC. (Vahak Cross—Complaint 11 7) According t0 Vahak’s Cross—Complaint Arsen was listed as an officer 0f AV Automotive, Inc. (Vahak Cross—Complaint 11 9) Vahak asserts that he has standing to bring this action as a personal cause 0f action versus a derivative cause 0f action because he alleged in Paragraph 29 0f the Complaint that “Vahak had, and continues t0 have, rightful ownership of all AV Auto Emails and corporate tax records.” (Vahak Cross—Complaint 1] 29) Vahak also alleges that “Portillo and/or those working at his direction, began hacking into email accounts 0f AV Auto employees, and duplicating and distributing private communications and records belonging t0 AVAuto. ” (Vahak Cross—Complaint 1] 1326-9, emphasis added.) Finally, Vahak alleges that he has been (not AV Automotive, Inc.) and Will continue to be, damaged by this conversion. (Vahak Cross—Complaint 11 3 1) 2 REPLY BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, ARSEN VARTANIAN AND EDGAR PORTILLO, TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO VAHAK VARTANIAN’S CROSS-COMPLAINT