Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Torosian v. Garabedian

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 1, 2016

CHARLES TOROSIAN and DIANA TOROSIAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
SANDRA GARABEDIAN, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          F. Dennis Saylor IV United States District Judge

         This is an intra-family dispute, arising out of the circumstances surrounding the last years and death of Garabed Dragoonian. Plaintiff Diana Torosian is Dragoonian’s daughter, and plaintiff Charles Torosian is her husband and Dragoonian’s son-in-law. Defendant Sandra Garabedian was apparently the companion of Dragoonian for many years. Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se.

         The complaint asserts three counts, which overlap and are not entirely coherent.[1] In substance, plaintiffs appear to assert two claims. First, they assert that Sandra Garabedian caused them severe emotional distress because (1) she prevented Dragoonian from having contact with Diana for some years and (2) failed to notify Diana of the time and place of her father’s death and funeral, causing her to miss the funeral. Second, they assert that Garabedian, in some unspecified way, interfered with Diana’s inheritance under Dragoonian’s will and prevented her from recovering money and property that had been promised to her.

         For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         Except where otherwise noted, the following facts are either undisputed or taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

         Garabed Dragoonian was, at the time of his death, a resident of Hampstead, New Hampshire. (Docket No. 34 at 6). For some number of years, he had a companion named Sandra Garabedian, who was also a resident of New Hampshire. (Id. at 5-6). Dragoonian died on November 5, 2014. (Id. at 6). The complaint alleges that Dragoonian suffered from dementia and amnesia in the last years of his life. (Compl. ¶ 11).

         Diana Torosian is the daughter of Dragoonian. (Id. at 5). Diana is a resident of Methuen, Massachusetts. (Docket No. 34 at 6). She is not, apparently, the daughter of Sandra Garabedian. (Id.). Charles Torosian is Diana’s husband. (Id.).

         Garabedian and Diana apparently had a difficult relationship. (Id. at 6). According to Diana’s daughter, Garabedian “would interfere with the phone conversations between Red and Diana.” (Id.). During his last years, Garabedian allegedly kept Dragoonian from having contact with Diana. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4). The complaint further alleges that Garabedian failed to notify Diana of Dragoonian’s death and burial, and refused to give her “access” to his will. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-5). Diana appears to contend that Dragoonian promised to leave her a substantial sum after his death, and that Garabedian has somehow interfered with this inheritance. (Compl. ¶ 8). It appears that a will, purportedly Dragoonian’s, was probated in New Hampshire. (Def. Opp. Mem. at 1). Plaintiffs contend that this will is illegitimate. (Am. Compl. at 2).[2]

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action on June 17, 2015. Defendant filed three separate motions to dismiss on July 28, 2015. The Court issued an order on September 25, 2015, directing plaintiffs to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a response to the show-cause order on October 16, 2015, together with an amended complaint. Defendant then filed a further motion to dismiss on October 19, 2015. On December 4, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims except for their claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) and intentional interference with inheritance or gift.

         On March 31, 2016, defendant moved for summary judgment as to the remaining claims. Defendant contends that she is entitled to summary judgment because (1) New Hampshire does not recognize the tort of the intentional interference with inheritance or gift and (2) plaintiffs have not established the elements of an IIED claim.

         II. L ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.