Jury Awards $1.2 Million in Suit Against Antonovich

A Superior Court jury awarded just over $1.2 million in damages Thursday to a businessman who convinced a jury that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich conspired to influence a judge on behalf of a campaign donor.

The compensatory damages awarded by a Norwalk jury in the civil lawsuit were seen as a stinging rebuke to Antonovich and the other defendants, who had argued that the supervisor did nothing improper in telephoning Judge Eric Younger almost five years ago on behalf of Krikor Suri and his business partners.

Antonovich said he was disappointed because he did nothing wrong.

“What you have here is a 13-year-old lawsuit between Armenian businessmen and we made a 30-second phone call,” Antonovich said. “For a 30-second phone call the jury ought to have been able to separate us from the judgment.”

The lawyer who won the case called the award “just.”

“This was a just verdict . . . the message the jurors sent is that politicians shouldn’t be calling judges for their campaign contributors under any circumstances,” said Bruce Altschuld, attorney for businessman Avedis Kasparian, who alleges that he lost money because the judge had been influenced by Antonovich. “This type of conduct is intolerable.”

Jurors also voted Thursday to award punitive damages, which are designed to punish the defendants or make an example of them. They will reconvene today, and Altschuld said he will ask for about 10% of the net worth of the businessmen.

If the damage award stands, it will be county taxpayers--not Antonovich--who will foot the bill, along with Suri and the other defendants, according to county lawyers. The county was named in the suit because Antonovich was said to be acting within his official duties.

By legal agreement among the parties, the county will help pay those damages in exchange for an exemption from any punitive damages.

Attorneys for the defendants said they will appeal the verdict and ask the judge to reduce the damage award. In addition to Suri, the county and Antonovich, the lawsuit names Jak Sukyas, Western Jewelry Mart Joint Venture and its partners.

“This jury went in upset and they went in to get a politician,” said Frank V. Zerunyan, Suri’s attorney. “My guys didn’t even ask (Antonovich) to make the phone call.”

Antonovich, who represents the sprawling 5th District which includes parts of the San Fernando, Santa Clarita, Antelope and San Gabriel valleys, has acknowledged calling Younger, whom he described on the witness stand as an old friend. But he said he did so only to offer himself as a character witness for Suri, whose jewelry business was being sued by Kasparian, his former partner.

Two months after Antonovich’s call, Judge Younger excused himself from the case. In a deposition, Younger said he was “uncomfortable about the call either having an impact or the appearance of an impact.”

According to campaign reports, Suri and his companies contributed about $19,000 to Antonovich’s campaigns from 1985 until 1989. They also loaned Antonovich $10,000 about one month before the supervisor called the judge, and they also made a $3,000 contribution to his campaign four days before Antonovich spoke to Younger.

“The damages are highly excessive,” said Principal Deputy County Counsel J. Patrick Joyce, who represented the county and Antonovich in the suit. “What this jury found was that the phone call interfered with the business relationship of the partners, that’s all.”

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 by letter that “the facts presented do not constitute a crime.”

Antonovich has long been accused of influence-peddling by political opponents. Six challengers who ran against him in June, 1992, failed to persuade voters that Antonovich’s board decisions were influenced by campaign contributions. Antonovich won his fourth term with 55% of the vote.

A judgment against Antonovich would not significantly weaken his base of support, Democratic and Republican pundits and party members had predicted. During his tenure on the board, Antonovich has become known as a law-and-order conservative, a staunch supporter of increasing the budgets of county law enforcement agencies, imposing tougher penalties on criminals and cracking down on illegal immigration.

“He’s known as a conservative and conservatives will stand by him,” said John Peschong, a spokesman for the California Republican Party.

Others agreed.

“It’s now 2 1/2 years away from the next election (June, 1996) and this could easily blow over,” said Paul Clarke, a Republican political consultant based in the San Fernando Valley. “Mike has done a very good job of keeping the political structure in his district happy. This is just another one of those fines that means politicians are held in low regard by the public.”

But the case could prove politically embarrassing. Jim Mihalka, a conservative Republican who ran against Antonovich last year, said he plans to call for the supervisor’s resignation at a board meeting this month.

Lynne Plambeck, who also ran against Antonovich last year, said Thursday that critics are considering a recall election.