Katoozian v. Bank of America CA4/1 (2014) · DecisionDepot
Katoozian v. Bank of America CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Jun 18, 2014 No. D064482Unpublished
Filed 6/18/14 Katoozian v. Bank of America CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXANDER A. KATOOZIAN, D064482
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00103693- CU-FR-CTL) BANK OF AMERICA N.A. et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Randa Trapp, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Herbert Papenfuss and Herbert Papenfuss for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Locke Lord, Conrad V. Sison and Daniel A. Solitro for Defendants and
Respondents.
Alexander A. Katoozian filed an action for fraud against Bank of America N.A.
(BofA) and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS; together with BofA, defendants),
alleging BofA produced a forged document during a separate unlawful detainer action
against him. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to Katoozian's fraud
complaint without leave to amend on the grounds that it was barred by the litigation
privilege and Katoozian failed to plead the elements of a fraud claim. Katoozian appeals,
contending (1) the litigation privilege does not apply to fraud causes of action, and (2) his
Katoozian's complaint against defendants was based entirely on his allegation that
BofA produced a "false and fraudulent" document, the Assignment, in response to a court
order in the unlawful detainer litigation. Production of the Assignment was a
communication in the course of the unlawful detainer litigation to achieve the object of
the litigation. Further, the Assignment was directly connected to the litigation in that the
court ordered its production. (See Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212.)
Thus, the communication comes squarely within the bar of the litigation privilege.
We also reject Katoozian's argument that we should not apply the litigation
privilege broadly to "allow[] attorney[s] and/or litigants to make up evidence, create false
evidence, [and] use[] forged documents in litigation without any consequences." If the
5
allegations in Katoozian's complaint are true, we certainly do not condone the alleged use
of a fraudulent document in litigation. However, the litigation privilege has been broadly
applied to cover false statements and forged documents so long as they pertain to the
litigation. (Carden v. Getzoff, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 915; Steiner v. Eikerling,
supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at pp. 642-643.) When there is a good faith intention to bring a
suit, even malicious publications " 'are protected as part of the price paid for affording
litigants the utmost freedom of access to the courts.' " (Carden, at p. 915.)
In sum, Katoozian has failed to state a viable cause of action against the
defendants and no amendment can cure that result as his claims are barred by the
litigation privilege. Accordingly, the trial court properly sustained defendants' demurrer
without leave to amend.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are entitled to their costs on appeal.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the litigation privilege bars a fraud action based on the production of an allegedly forged document during a prior judicial proceeding. The privilege applies to all torts other than malicious prosecution, including fraud, regardless of the alleged malice or falsity of the communication.
Issues
Does the litigation privilege apply to fraud causes of action?
Is a fraud claim based on the production of a forged document in a prior lawsuit barred by the litigation privilege?
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude Katoozian's claims against defendants were barred by the litigation privilege.”
“The litigation privilege is absolute and broadly applied regardless of malice.”
“It even applies to fraudulent or perjured communications, as long as the statements pertain to the litigation.”