Court Calls Acts by Antonovich ‘Reprehensible’ : Lawsuit: Appeals panel ruled in supervisor’s favor but judge said reversal of verdict ‘should not be seen as exoneration.’ Rebuke may lend weight to request for rehearing of the case.

A little-publicized aspect of an appellate court case involving county Supervisor Mike Antonovich has inspired an unusually strong request to rehear the case and opened a rift between the supervisor and an old friend and supporter.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal last month reversed a jury verdict against Antonovich, the county and two others, ruling that the supervisor did not conspire with a group of supporters to influence negotiations in a pending lawsuit.

But the court, in an aspect of the decision that was not widely publicized, called Antonovich “reprehensible” for phoning a judge on behalf of contributors to his 1988 reelection campaign.

The court must rule by Monday on a request by Avedis Kasparian to reconsider the lawsuit. He claims he lost $2.5 million as a result of Antonovich’s involvement.

In its Sept. 14 opinion, the Court of Appeal voided a $1.3-million jury award against the county. In the opinion, written by Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey, the court said that Kasparian could not recover damages based on the particular law under which he sued.

But the court didn’t leave it at that; it took a swipe at Antonovich.

“Our decision to reverse the judgment should not be seen as an exoneration of the county defendants,” Croskey wrote. “The evidence presented was more than sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Antonovich had allowed his political supporters to induce him to attempt to influence a Superior Court judge in a pending case. This is unacceptable behavior.”

Antonovich and the judge he called grew up in the same Los Feliz neighborhood and were high school chums. But the incident has fractured their long-time friendship.

“Few personal experiences in my life have shocked and sickened me more than learning, years later, that my childhood friend had taken money to call me,” the judge, Superior Court Judge Eric Younger, recently wrote the Court of Appeal.

Antonovich, who would not comment, also was criticized for the timing of his call: the two political supporters had contributed $13,000 to Antonovich in the days immediately before and after the incident. He reported $10,000 of it as a loan in his campaign documents.

“That it was done in the context of the contemporaneous receipt of substantial political contributions from the individuals in whose favor the influence was sought makes it all the more reprehensible,” Croskey wrote.

“This sort of thing [cannot] be justified as normal constituent service,” Croskey added. “We . . . cannot condemn too strongly the attempt made in this case by an important elected public official to influence an anticipated judicial decision.”

Kasparian has asked the court to reconsider his arguments. Although most such requests are routinely denied, Kasparian’s lawyer says this one is different, in part because of the court’s excoriation of Antonovich.

“You read the [appellate opinion], and think, ‘How could we possibly lose?’ ” said attorney Bruce Altschuld.

In the original case, Kasparian claimed that businessmen Kirkor Suri and Jak Sukyas, partners along with Kasparian in the Downtown Jewelry Mart, were negotiating with him to buy out his interest in the mart. They were going to buy him out, Kasparian alleged, in order to induce him to drop a $100,000 lawsuit against them that was pending before Younger.

But just as the negotiations were being concluded, the two businessmen met with Antonovich, Kasparian alleged. They were so bolstered by the meeting and an alleged belief that Antonovich would contact Younger on their behalf that they dropped the negotiations, according to Kasparian.

Kasparian later sued Antonovich, the county and the two men under a state law that prohibits interference with prospective economic gain.

By ruling that Kasparian could not recover damages, Altschuld has argued in his current brief, the court effectively voided the entire law under which the suit was filed.

A footnote to the Court of Appeal opinion also criticized Younger.

“The conduct of Judge Younger is likewise subject to criticism,” the court said. “Without doubt, he should not have permitted the telephone conversation with Antonovich to continue after he learned that it related to a case then pending before him.”

Now Younger has asked the court to remove his name from the document. In a letter to the court dated Sept. 28, Younger said he cut off the phone call as soon as he realized that Antonovich was calling in reference to a pending case. Younger recused himself from the case six weeks later.

The letter was sent to the court and to attorneys involved in the case. However, Masumi Gavinski, a clerk in Division 3 of the appeals court, said the court had not entered the letter into the official case file and had indicated to her that it did not intend to take action on it.

“If that’s so, I’m disappointed,” said Younger, who said he would not comment further until Monday, the deadline for appellate court action in the case. Younger also criticized Antonovich in his letter, saying that he did not know until Kasparian’s case was filed that the two businessmen had contributed to the supervisor’s campaign.

Antonovich and his attorneys refused to comment on the letter, citing the upcoming ruling on Kasparian’s petition to hear the case again. But the county and Antonovich’s attorneys submitted a letter of their own to the court, which stated that the county and the supervisor opposed Younger’s request.

The court also criticized the county for making a deal that effectively removed Antonovich from having personal liability in the case.