Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00268/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00268-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 08cv0268

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW KASHANI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv0268 JM(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

vs. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TYLER ADAMS; PAUL PHIPPS; DONALD

CHAFFEE; BONNIE CHAFFEE,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Matthew Kashani moves for partial summary judgment against

Defendant Tyler Adams as to the issue of liability on each of the four claims alleged in

the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendant Adams did not file an opposition

nor a statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). Pursuant to

Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. For

the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion for partial summary judgment

as to liability on each of the four claims. 

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2009 Plaintiff filed this diversity action alleging four state law claims

for relief: defamation, fraud, conversion, and fraudulent use of personal and business

information. Plaintiff alleges that in January 2007 Adams requested that he partner with

him in the purchase of real property in Murrietta, California. (FAC ¶6). To that end,

Case 3:08-cv-00268-JM-WVG Document 81 Filed 09/11/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 08cv0268

Plaintiff deposited about $50,000 into an escrow account and then Defendants cancelled

escrow and transferred the funds into a co-defendant’s bank account. (FAC ¶7).

Defendant Adams admitted the defalcation. Id. 

Defendant Adams also allegedly obtain the Tax ID numbers of two corporations

in which Plaintiff was an officer, Habley Medical Technology Corp. (“Habley”) and

Fissatto Inc. (FAC ¶9). Using credit information obtained on Habley and Fissato,

Defendants wrongfully purchased real estate, leased out the properties, ceased paying

the mortgages, and retained the lease payments. (FAC ¶¶9-11). Defendants allegedly

informed lenders that they earned $500,000 as officers of Habley and Fissatto and then

obtained loans based upon the false income statements. Defendants also used the credit

of Habley and Fissatto to obtain credit cards and cash advances. Plaintiff’s defamation

claim arises from false statements made by Defendant Adams in 2007. At that time,

Defendant Adams informed Wells Fargo Bank and other lenders that Plaintiff had given

false information to the lenders to obtain credit. (FAC ¶23). 

On April 22, 2009, Defendant Adams filed an answer to the FAC. With respect

to the allegation that Defendant Adams wrongfully cancelled escrow and wrongfully

transferred the funds to a co-defendant’s bank account, “Defendant Adams admits

taking, along with Donald Chaffee, this money from Kashani, as an unlawful

conversion of escrow funds.” (Answer ¶7, Docket No. 54). Defendant Adams also

admits that he wrongfully used the credit of Habley and Fissatto to obtain credit cards,

loans, and cash. (Answer ¶11). With respect to the defamatory statement, Defendant

Adams admits making the defamatory statement and represents that he “set the record

straight eventually and withdrew my defamatory statements.” (Answer ¶23). 

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where “there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th

Case 3:08-cv-00268-JM-WVG Document 81 Filed 09/11/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 08cv0268

Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the

basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the file which it believes

demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). There is “no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that

the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating

the opponent’s claim.” Id. (emphasis in original). The opposing party cannot rest on

the mere allegations or denials of a pleading, but must “go beyond the pleadings and by

[the party’s] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial.’” Id. at 324, 106 S. Ct. At 2553 (citation omitted). The opposing party also may

not rely solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data. Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). Any doubt

as to the existence of any issue of material fact requires denial of the motion. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment,

when “‘the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with

evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence were

uncontroverted at trial.’” Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)

(emphasis in original) (quoting International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d

1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992)).

The Motion

In light of the admissions made by Defendant concerning his role in the

misappropriation and conversion of $49,000 in funds from the escrow account, (Answer

¶6,7, 28), the admission of making defamatory statements about Plaintiff, (Answer

¶¶23, 26), the admission of liability on fraud and the wrongful use of identifying

information to obtain credit, (Answer ¶¶11, 27, 29), and Defendant Adam’s failure to

file any opposition, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary as to liability

Case 3:08-cv-00268-JM-WVG Document 81 Filed 09/11/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 08cv0268

on each of the four causes of action. As both Plaintiff and Defendant agree that

damages are not properly awarded on the present motion for summary judgment, the

court defers ruling on damages until the time of trial.

In sum, the court grants Plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment as to

liability on each of the four causes of action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-00268-JM-WVG Document 81 Filed 09/11/09 Page 4 of 4