ABRAHAM KASPARIAN, JR. v. SETH G. ROMAN & Others.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
22-P-231
ABRAHAM KASPARIAN, JR.
vs.
SETH G. ROMAN & others.1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Abraham Kasparian, Jr., appeals from the
dismissal of his Superior Court complaint against the
defendants, Seth Roman, Steven DeYoung, Jeremy Carter, and their
law firm, Carter DeYoung. We affirm.
Background. We briefly summarize the facts from
Kasparian's complaint, accepting as true the facts alleged
therein as well as any reasonable inferences fairly drawn
therefrom. See Lopez v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 696, 700
(2012). Kasparian had previously filed a civil action,
"Kasparian v. Cycle Services JD Signs, LLC, et al," docket
number 2125-CV-000100, in the District Court (hereafter the
"underlying case"). On July 15, 2021, at a deposition in the
1 Steven S. DeYoung, Jeremy M. Carter, and Carter DeYoung,
Attorneys at Law.
underlying case, Kasparian asked questions of the deponent.2 At
various times during the deposition, Roman, who represented the
deponent, interrupted Kasparian, insulted Kasparian's knowledge
of how to conduct a deposition, and instructed the deponent not
to answer certain questions. Later during the deposition, after
Kasparian asked the deponent to provide his home address (and
the deponent refused to do so), Roman "stood up from the table"
and said to Kasparian:
"For the record, you're a pro se litigant. You are in the
business of bring [sic] lawsuits against each and every
person or business that you interact with. You have
hundreds of lawsuits on file throughout the Commonwealth.
You have a prior conviction for manslaughter . . . My
client does not need to give you his home address . . . ."
Roman's comments humiliated Kasparian in front of the court
reporter and the deponent, were made to cause harm to Kasparian
and his business relationship with the court reporter, and
caused Kasparian to have nightmares. In addition, Kasparian did
not have a prior conviction for manslaughter.3
Subsequently, Roman filed a document in the underlying case
captioned "Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions and Cross-Motion for Protective Order." Roman
appended to the filing a copy of a guardianship decree, judicial
findings from the guardianship matter, and a copy of a Superior
2 The deponent was also the defendant in the underlying case.
3 As discussed, infra, Kasparian had a conviction for armed
assault with intent to murder.
2
Court criminal case docket showing, inter alia, Kasparian's
conviction for armed assault with intent to murder. See note 3,
supra. Within the filing, Roman referred to the guardianship
decree and summarized its findings as follows:
"Since 2008, the Plaintiff has been under guardianship by
reason of mental illness, Hampden Probate & Family Court,
Docket No. HD07P2700GI1, having previously been committed
pursuant to M.G.L. c. 123, §§ 7 and 8. He was diagnosed
with schitzoaffective disorder, bipolar type, cocaine
abuse, and heroin dependence, with symptoms including
psychosis, mania, grandiosity, delusional thinking, and
assaultive and combative behavior, treated by antipsychotic
medication by court order."
In the present action, in addition to the allegations delineated
above, Kasparian averred that the guardianship pleadings related
to a different "Kasparian," and that Roman received Kasparian's
criminal record information in violation of the Massachusetts
Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statute, G. L. c. 6,
§ 172.
The defendants moved to dismiss the compliant in the
present action. Following a hearing, a Superior Court judge
allowed the motion "for the reasons set forth in the
[defendants'] motion and memorandum." This appeal followed.
Discussion. "We review the allowance of a motion to
dismiss de novo." Galiastro v. Mortgage Elec. Registration
Sys., Inc., 467 Mass. 160, 164 (2014). "We accept as true the
facts alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint as well as any
3
favorable inferences that reasonably can be drawn from them."
Id.Kasparian contends that the judge erred in allowing the
defendants' motion to dismiss because the complaint states
several causes of action. Kasparian claims that Roman's actions
in the underlying case -- including but not limited to his
statements at the deposition and the content of his court
filings delineated above -- were false, misleading, violated
various statutes, and were actionably tortious.4
The defendants respond, inter alia, that all of Kasparian's
claims stem from oral and written statements made by Roman in
the course of litigation and are thus protected by the
litigation privilege. We agree. The litigation privilege
generally precludes civil liability based on "statements by a
party, counsel or witness in the institution of, or during the
course of, a judicial proceeding," as well as statements
"preliminary to litigation" that relate to the contemplated
proceeding. Sriberg v. Raymond, 370 Mass. 105, 108-109 (1976).
If the privilege attaches, its protections are absolute. See
4 Kasparian's complaint included counts of violation of G. L.
c. 6, § 172 (CORI statute), intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligence and gross negligence, "Violation of
Protecting access to Confidential Health Care Records (PATCH
Act)," libel and slander, violations of Massachusetts privacy
statute, breach of the "Professional Rules of Conduct," and
declaratory judgment.
4
Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 320 (1991). See also
Bassichis v. Flores, 490 Mass. 143, 150 (2022) (litigation
privilege "applies regardless of malice, bad faith, or any
nefarious motives on the part of the lawyer so long as the
conduct complained of has some relation to the litigation"
[citation omitted]).
In the present case, it cannot be disputed that Roman's
comments at the deposition were made during the course of
judicial proceedings. Roman's court filings likewise must
receive the same protections. See Bassichis, 490 Mass. at 158
("litigation privilege applies to an attorney's actions during
the course of a judicial proceeding, just as it does to the
attorney's communications"). Where each cause of action in
Kasparian's complaint relates to statements, writings, and
actions taken by Roman in the underlying case, the privilege
5
applies. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.5
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Neyman, Sacks &
Hodgens, JJ.6),
Clerk
Entered: May 5, 2023.
5 To the extent that we have not specifically addressed
subsidiary arguments in the parties' briefs, they have been
considered, and do not warrant further discussion. See
Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).
6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
6