Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02054/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYKAL S. RYAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2054-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND, AND MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL

[Docket nos. 12, 13.]

vs.

PETER G. ZEMANIAN,

Defendant.

Defendant Peter Zemanian removed this defamation action from state court on

September 6, 2011, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The essence of Plaintiff Mykal

Ryan’s claim is that Zemanian contacted people in California, and made false and damaging

statements about him. 

Motion for Leave to Amend; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

On November 13, 2012, Ryan, who is proceeding pro se submitted a motion for leave

to amend his complaint, and for partial summary judgment, which the Court accepted by

discrepancy order for filing. Ryan also filed a separate Notice of Motion and Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment (Docket no. 12.) The Court will construe both documents

together as Ryan’s motion.

/ / /

- 1 - 11cv2054

Case 3:11-cv-02054-LAB-NLS Document 15 Filed 11/16/12 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

The motion discusses bankruptcy proceedings in Virginia that Ryan and Zemanian

have been involved in. After that, it is divided into two subsections, the motion for leave to

amend, and the motion for partial summary judgment. 

The motion for leave to amend says Ryan wasn’t able to explain his tort claims

adequately. It says he had to provide full-time care for his incapacitated father, who later

passed away, and also that he is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. The

complaint itself referred to Ryan’s post-traumatic stress disorder. Apparently the purpose of

this motion is to update the Court and Zemanian on Ryan’s current personal situation and

treatment status. If there is some reason why amending the complaint to include this new

information is necessary, Ryan has not explained it.

The motion for partial summary judgment (consisting of Docket no. 12 and part of

Docket no. 13) includes claims based on Ryan’s family trust. It says Zemanian is not obeying

the terms of the trust document, and has fraudulently seized Ryan’s property. Ryan seeks

to enforce the terms of the trust and to prevent Zemanian from seizing more of his property.

Aside from the fact that the standard for summary judgment is far from being met, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, this is a defamation action, not a bankruptcy case. If Ryan believes he

is or was being treated unjustly in connection with a bankruptcy case (either ongoing or

completed), his remedy is or was with the court that is handling that case. He cannot get

relief by filing a defamation action in some other court.

Ryan’s motion for leave to amend, and for partial summary judgment, are DENIED.

Order to Show Cause

Zemanian moved to dismiss this action, raising among other defenses the litigation

privilege. He argued that Ryan was actually complaining about actions he took in connection

with a bankruptcy proceeding in Virginia, and that because such actions are privileged, this

case ought to be dismissed. Applying the standard for motions to dismiss, however, the

Court accepted the allegations in the complaint as true, and denied the motion without

prejudice.

/ / /

- 2 - 11cv2054

Case 3:11-cv-02054-LAB-NLS Document 15 Filed 11/16/12 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

Ryan’s latest motion, however, includes representations suggesting that Zemanian’s

earlier motion to dismiss was correct. Ryan’s latest filings suggest he is really complaining

about things Zemanian said during litigation of a bankruptcy case in Virginia, which resulted

in Ryan losing property and being branded as dishonest. If this is what is claiming, the

Court’s earlier order would have reached the opposite conclusion. (See Docket no. 9 (Order

Denying Motion to Dismiss), 4:7–13 (in the course of resolving conflicts in Plaintiff’s favor,

accepting Ryan’s version of the facts rather than Zemanian’s claim that Ryan was “really

complaining about things he said in Virginia during and in connection with bankruptcy

proceedings”).) 

If the claims set forth in Ryan’s current motions are correct, the complaint’s

allegations are wrong (or, at least, incomplete) and Zemanian’s arguments based on

litigation privilege, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue are well-taken. In other

words, if Ryan’s real grievance is that Zemanian obtained some unfair advantage in the

bankruptcy action in Virginia, or defamed him in the course of litigating that case, he has no

viable claim in this Court, even if what Zemanian said was false.

Ryan is therefore ORDEREDTO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not reconsider

its order of September 25, 2012 denying Zemanian’s motion to dismiss, and grant it in light

of Ryan’s new representations. He may do so by filing a memorandum of points and

authorities, not longer than seven pages, no later than December 3, 2012. The page limit

does not include any attached or lodged materials, but any arguments Ryan wants to make

should be included in the main body of the memorandum and not in attachments or exhibits. 

If Ryan files a memorandum, Zemanian may if he wishes file a reply, within 14

calendar days.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 3 - 11cv2054

Case 3:11-cv-02054-LAB-NLS Document 15 Filed 11/16/12 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

If Ryan does not show cause within the time permitted, either by failing to file

a memorandum, or by filing a memorandum that does not show cause, this action will

be dismissed without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv2054

Case 3:11-cv-02054-LAB-NLS Document 15 Filed 11/16/12 Page 4 of 4