Judge Says Bankrupt Company Liable for Damages in Antonovich Case : Courts: Plaintiff Avedis Kasparian may seek damages from Western Jewelry Mart Joint Venture as well as other defendants.
A civil trial in which a jury found that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich conspired to influence a judge resumed Wednesday after a defendant who declared bankruptcy in the midst of the case was ordered liable for any damages.
The order by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Vincent P. Zurzolo is a victory for the plaintiff, Avedis Kasparian, who may now seek damages from all the defendants in the case, including Western Jewelry Mart Joint Venture, which declared bankruptcy Tuesday. Kasparian is seeking $1.7 million.
Last week, a Superior Court jury found in favor of Kasparian, who contends that Antonovich tried to influence a judge on behalf of a campaign donor. The suit names the donor, Krikor Suri, several of Suri’s business partners, Antonovich and the county as defendants. The county is named because Antonovich is said to have acted within his official duties.
The same jury briefly heard opening arguments and testimony Wednesday in the damages phase of the trial, but left without beginning deliberations. The trial is set to reconvene in Norwalk today.
Antonovich has acknowledged calling Superior Court Judge Eric Younger, whom he described as an old friend, but denies any impropriety. He said he called the judge in November, 1988, to offer himself as a character witness for Suri, whose jewelry business was being sued by Kasparian.
According to campaign reports, Suri and his companies contributed about $19,000 to Antonovich’s campaigns from 1985 to 1989. A $3,000 contribution was made less than a month after Antonovich called the judge, the reports show.
But during the trial, Kasparian’s attorney, Bruce Altschuld, contended that the $3,000 check was actually dated four days before Antonovich spoke to Younger on the telephone and one day before Antonovich met with Suri.
Suri’s attorneys have declined to comment on any aspect of the trial, except the verdict, which they have said was motivated by the public’s general distrust of politicians.
Criminal charges were never filed against Antonovich, although Kasparian complained to the district attorney’s office about the supervisor’s conduct eight months after the telephone call. But prosecutors responded in a letter dated Aug. 10, 1989, that “the facts presented do not constitute a criminal offense.”
Attorneys for Suri and the other businessmen argued Wednesday before the jury that Kasparian does not deserve $1.7 million in damages because the formula used to arrive at the sum is unfair.
Kasparian is asking for that amount because he said it represents the difference between the amount that Suri and the other businessmen paid him to settle the original lawsuit in 1991--$800,000--and the amount that they verbally agreed to settle it for before meeting with Antonovich--$2.5 million.
But Suri’s attorneys told the jury that there never was a verbal agreement to settle the case for that amount and that Kasparian turned down other settlement offers.
