IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 47122 GALUST BERIAN, a single individual; and ) JULIA BERIAN, a single individual, ) ) Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants- ) Appellants, ) ) Boise, May 2020 Term v. ) ) Opinion Filed: November 2, 2020 OVANES BERBERIAN, a single individual; ) and SOCORRO BERBERIAN, a single ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk individual, ) ) Defendants-Counterclaimants- ) Respondents. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Jefferson County. Stevan H. Thompson, District Judge. The district court’s order granting partial summary judgment is affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The partial judgment is affirmed in part, and vacated in part. Dunn Law Office, PLLC, Rigby, and Whittington Law Office, Chtd., Idaho Falls, for appellants, Galust and Julia Berian. Robin D. Dunn argued. Hopkins Roden Crockett Hansen & Hoopes, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for respondents, Ovanes and Socorro Berberian. Lary S. Larson argued. _____________________ STEGNER, Justice. This case arises out of a number of disputes between two brothers, Galust Berian (Galust) and Ovanes Berberian (Ovanes). In June 2017, Galust and Julia Berian (Julia is the daughter of Galust and the niece of Ovanes) were arrested after Ovanes reported to law enforcement that Galust and Julia had stolen several items from him. After the reported theft, Galust and Julia were arrested for unlawful entry onto property shared by Ovanes and his ex-wife, Socorro Berberian (Socorro), and for resisting arrest. After these charges were dropped, Galust and Julia brought a lawsuit against Ovanes and Socorro, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent 1 infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, defamation, breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and conversion. Ovanes filed a counterclaim seeking redress for conversion. Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment on all of Galust’s and Julia’s claims, which the district court granted except for their conversion claim. The district court also certified its grant of partial summary judgment as final pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(b), a process which allowed Galust and Julia to appeal the district court’s decision even though all of the claims between the parties had not been resolved. Galust and Julia appeal from the grant of summary judgment, arguing that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to each of their other causes of action. Ovanes and Socorro respond, arguing summary judgment was proper because Galust and Julia failed to establish one or more elements of each of their claims. In addition, Ovanes and Socorro argue that Galust and Julia failed to establish a genuine factual issue in regard to Ovanes’ and Socorro’s affirmative defenses, including the judicial privilege doctrine and the statute of limitations. For the reasons outlined in this opinion, we affirm the grant of summary judgment regarding the tort claims of invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress, as well as the contract and fraud claims. However, we reverse the grant of summary judgment regarding the claims of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals