Facts

Saraswati Sukumar ("Sara"), after an allegedly long and difficult marriage, decided to divorce Ponani Sukurnar ("Ponani"). Ponani allegedly told Saraswati that he would agree to a divorce if she forfeited all community property, including their home. If she wouldn't give up the community property, he allegedly threatened to "ruin her financially." Saraswati refused to give in.

Shortly thereafter she was served with a lawsuit by Lee, a college classmate and best friend of Ponani, for breach of contract on an alleged loan for approximately $1.5 million made secretly to Ponani during the marriage. Ponani then filed a cross complaint against Saraswati, claiming that if they owed money to Lee, Saraswati would be responsible for one half of that sum.

Prior to trial of the underlying breach of contract case, Lee and Ponani entered into a stipulated judgment whereby Ponani agreed to repay half of the alleged loan, with installation payments over several years. Thereafter, Lee dismissed his case against his friend, Ponani, and proceeded to trial against Saraswati.

According to plaintiff's counsel, during Lee's deposition he brought with him a panda bear hand puppet, which he wore, consulted with, and through which he would answer questions. Plaintiff's counsel claims that the testimony that he would give was frivolous and unresponsive.

At the trial of the underlying case, Ponani pled the 5th Amendment and refused to testify. Ponani dismissed his cross complaint against Saraswati, without consideration. After a five day court trial, the trial judge issued a statement of decision. In that statement, the judge indicated he was suspicious that Lee manufactured documents for purposes of trial, that Lee was disingenuous, that the lawsuit was brought for an improper purpose, and, there was a likelihood that Lee had been paying for Ponani's attorney fees at the same time he was suing him.

The court found in favor of Saraswati, and awarded her $135,736 in attorney fees. The award was later overturned by the Appeals court on technical grounds.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Sarawati then filed the instant lawsuit for malicious prosecution against Lee and Ponani, contending that Lee's lawsuit forced her into bankruptcy and damaged her reputation as a world renowned breast cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins Medical Center. She alleged that Ponani's cross complaint was dismissed without consideration, and that he and Lee conspired together and contrived the entire underlying case.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendant Ponani Sukumar contended that he did owe money to Lee and that he did not conspire with Lee to file against him and his ex-wife Saraswati Sukumar. He argued that since he did not file the underlying action and did not conspire, he could not be held liable for malicious prosecution.

Defendant Lee contended that both Ponani and Saraswati Sukumar owed him money justifying his breach of contract action to retrieve it. He denied any conspiracy between he and Ponani Sukumar.

Result

The jury found that Lee knew his claim against Saraswati was false when he filed his breach of contract action, that he acted primarily for a purpose other than succeeding on the merits of the claim, that he engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud so as to justify an award of punitive damages; and, that his actions caused harm to Saraswati. They awarded Saraswati $160,000 for economic losses; $800,000 in general damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

Other Information

According to plaintiff's counsel, Lee is an heir to the Lee Rubber Company, the world's largest rubber company, and a multi-billion dollar corporation. Plaintiff's counsel claims that it was clear to the judge, as well as the jury in the malicious prosecution case, that this entire matter was meant as entertainment to Lee. Lee turned down plaintiff's C.C.P. 998 offer of $625,000 and instead spent in excess of $1 million to defend the case. Plaintiff's counsel also notes that Paul Pfingst is now the ex-District Attorney of San Diego County, and that Leslie E. Devaney is now the ex-Assistant City Attorney of the city of San Diego.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

12-0

Length

14 days