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

October 3, 2016

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

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO STAY

          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 alleged that Garabedian caused plaintiffs severe emotional distress because she (1) 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. The complaint also alleged 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.

         On August 1, 2016, the Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment as to both claims. Plaintiffs now contend that they have new evidence in support of their claims and seek a reconsideration of that judgment[1] and an order preventing defendant from selling or transferring their father's assets.[2]

         A motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence must be denied where the movant fails to provide a “cogent reason” as to why the evidence was previously undiscoverable. Plaintiffs here have failed to provide any reason at all as to why the evidence they now seek to offer was previously undiscoverable.

         Accordingly, and for the following reasons, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction will be denied.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         The facts of this case are set forth in this Court's August 1, 2016 memorandum and order granting summary judgment. For the purposes of understanding the issues involved in plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the facts are recounted again here.

         Garabed Dragoonian was, at the time of his death, a resident of Hampstead, New Hampshire. (Dkt 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. (Dkt 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).

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiffs filed the 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 ...


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.