Aghaian v. Minassian
234 Cal. App. 4th 427
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs, heirs of Gagik and Knarik Galstian, sued Minassian and Izadi for breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and conversion arising from alleged misappropriation of Iranian property.
- The trial court stayed the action under forum non conveniens, finding Iran a suitable alternate forum and that substantial justice favored dismissal.
- Gagik and Knarik fled Iran in 1978; in 1996 Iran issued a ruling allowing return to reclaim property; transfers of remaining properties to Minassian/Izadi occurred by 2008.
- Plaintiffs allege in 2013 suit that the 2008 quitclaim deed transferred all remaining properties to Minassian; court records reveal Iran-related proceedings and charges.
- Minassian offered to submit to Iranian jurisdiction and toll/waive statute of limitations; experts claimed Iran’s judiciary is independent and capable of fair proceedings, while plaintiffs presented contrasting evidence.
- Appellate court held Iran is not a suitable forum, reversed the stay, and remanded for further proceedings with costs awarded on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Iran a suitable alternate forum? | Aghaian asserts Iran offers no adequate due process and remedies due to gender/religion biases. | Minassian argues Iranian courts provide adequate procedures and jurisdiction; waiver of limitations is possible. | Iran not a suitable forum. |
| Do due process concerns defeat suitability? | Iranian judiciary discriminates against women and non-Muslims; testimony weighting and outcomes are biased. | Procedures exist to present claims; asserted independence of process controls remedy. | Not sufficient; due process concerns prevail against suitability. |
| Does evidence of potential remedies in Iran override biases? | Despite procedural existence, biases render remedy ineffective. | Evidence of available procedures shows Iran can adjudicate claims. | Remedies in Iran are not meaningfully available due to systemic bias. |
| Should Rasoulzadeh-like concerns bar Iran as forum? | Rasoulzadeh shows Iran may provide no remedy due to safety and fairness concerns. | Distinguish Rasoulzadeh; here parties are not at risk; father traveled to Iran previously. | Rasoulzadeh concerns apply; Iran remains unsuitable. |
| What is the standard of review on forum non conveniens findings? | Trial court relied on expert declarations favorable to Iran; record insufficient to show suitability. | De novo review allowed where no conflict in evidence; court properly weighed factors. | Appellate review affirmed that Iran is not a suitable forum; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 42 Cal.2d 577 (1954) (forum non conveniens threshold analysis)
- Shiley Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.App.4th 126 (1992) (rare circumstances where no remedy exists)
- Guimei v. General Electric Co., 172 Cal.App.4th 689 (2009) (suitability requires jurisdiction and no statute bar)
- Rasoulzadeh v. Associated Press, 574 F.Supp. 854 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (Iran as suitable forum unlikely when remedy unlikely)
- Boaz v. Boyle & Co., 40 Cal.App.4th 700 (1995) (foreign forum must provide due process and independent judiciary)
- Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1995) (Iranian judgments not recognized due to lack of due process)
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, 244 F.Supp.2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (illustrates evidentiary burden in forum non conveniens)