Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Iran Remains Unsuitable Forum Though Plaintiffs Sued There
2015 Declaration by C.A. That Courts There Are Marked by Injustice Remains Law of the Case, Bigelow Says, Even Though Plaintiffs Subsequently Invoked Jurisdiction of Those Courts
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that its 2015 decision proclaiming, in agreement with the plaintiffs, that Iran was an unsuitable forum because it discriminates against women and non-Muslims, does not lose its vitality as “law of the case” based on those same plaintiffs having subsequently brought an action, touching on some of the same claims, in Iran.
Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow of Div. Eight authored the plaintiffs latest opinion, filed Monday, affirming a judgment awarded by then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William MacLaughlin (now retired) for $34,506,989 plus interest in favor of Seda Galstian Aghaian and Aida Galstian Norhadian. They (along with a sister who was not a party to the appeal) sued Shahen Minassian (now deceased and represented by the special administrator of his estate) based on swindling their parents in connection with land in Iran.
Bigelow also wrote the Feb. 17, 2015 opinion in the case which reversed an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kevin Brazile, in response to Minassian’s motion, declaring Iran to be the appropriate venue. There, she said: “[T]he evidence is overwhelming that Iranian courts discriminate against women and non-Muslims. Among other things, Plaintiffs submitted evidence that the testimony of a woman counts for half the value of that of a man, and that women are not treated equally before the courts, particularly in personal status matters relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody, and only men can serve as judicial officers.”
‘No Remedy’
Bigelow went on to point out in the 2015 opinion:
“Two of the three Plaintiffs here are women and the Galstian family members are not Muslim. Leaving aside whether Iranian courts are independent or corrupt, this is sufficient to show Iran is not a suitable alternative forum. This is the ‘rare circumstance’ in which an alternative forum ‘provides no remedy at all.’ ” That cannot be binding, Minassian argued on appeal from the judgment, in light of the plaintiffs having invoked the jurisdiction of an Iranian court, asserting that MacLaughlin erred in denying his renewed motion based on forum non conveniens.
Disagreeing, Bigelow said in Monday’s opinion:
“Minassian provides no authority to support his waiver argument, nor are we aware of any. He similarly fails to provide authority that the existence of a pending action in an alternative forum is relevant to determining whether it is suitable. In the absence of such authority, Minassian has not shown the record on remand differed in a meaningful way. As the trial court noted, the key facts in Aghaian I that led us to conclude Iran is not a suitable forum have not changed. The law of the case doctrine applies and compels the denial of Minassian’s renewed inconvenient forum motion.”
Appeal Appropriate
The plaintiffs contended that the denial of a motion based on forum non convenience, like a motion to quash service of process based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, may be attacked by a writ petition, but not in an appeal from a final judgment. Both motions, they pointed out, are governed by Code of Civil Procedure §418.10, arguing in their brief:
“Venue, like personal jurisdiction, is a threshold issue that should be conclusively decided at the outset of the litigation, so the parties and the court need not go through an expensive and time-consuming trial only to learn on appeal that the whole trial, even if free from reversible error, must be repeated in a different court.”
Bigelow responded:
“The rationale underpinning the motion to quash rule is that a defendant who makes a general appearance forever waives a personal jurisdiction objection….The same reasoning does not apply to inconvenient forum motions. Unlike personal jurisdiction, a defendant who makes a general appearance does not waive the inconvenient forum issue. To the contrary, section 410.30 permits a defendant to bring such a motion after making a general appearance….Moreover, section 410.30 does not set a deadline for a defendant to file an inconvenient forum motion, which undercuts Plaintiffs’ policy argument that venue should be conclusively decided at the outset of litigation; the Legislature clearly believes otherwise.”
The case is Aghaian v. Minassian, 2021 S.O.S. 2210.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company