Parvizian v.
Transportation
Filed 8/3/12 Parvizian v. Cal. Dept. of Transportation CA2/5
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FIVE
SYRUS PARVIZIAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B235558
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. LC092105)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County.
Ruth A. Kwan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Syrus
Parvizian, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Ronald W.
Beals, Chief Counsel, Linda Cohen Harrel, Deputy Chief Counsel, Jill
Siciliano-Okoye, Helen Lemmon Alarcon for Defendant and Respondent California
Department of Transportation.
Law Offices
of Torres & Brenner, Anita Susan Brenner for Defendant and Respondent
County of Los
Angeles.
_______________
Plaintiff and appellant Syrus Parvizian appeals from the
judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents, the County
of Los Angeles, and the State of California's
Department of Transportation, on his complaint, after respondents' demurrers
were granted without leave to amend. We
affirm.
Facts and Discussion
By way of
background, appellant was for a time employed by the Department of
Transportation, and was for a time married to Malak Parvizian. He has earlier filed lawsuits and appeals in
the family law action, and earlier sued the State for wrongful termination and
related causes of action.
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
This
lawsuit was filed on December 14,
2010. The complaint brought
causes of action titled breach of
fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, abuse of discretion, breach of written
employment agreement, constructive fraud, and fraud and defraud.
The factual
allegations generally concerned two subjects; a December 2001 order in the
family law proceeding, and appellant's termination from employment with the
Department of Transportation, which was alleged to have taken place in
2003. As to the family law proceeding,
the allegation was that the family law court made an order that a sum
representing child and spousal support be deducted from appellant's Department
of Transportation paycheck and deposited in a County trust fund for the benefit
of appellant's wife and child, and that the defendants, the superior court, his
former wife's attorney and others committed fraud and misconduct in the
calculation of support and support arrearages and in execution of the support
order. As to the wrongful termination,
the complaint alleged the Department of Transportation breached an employment
agreement by failing to pay sums due to him in salary and in severance pay,
wrongfully terminated him from employment, and acted wrongfully in other
respects.
All
defendants demurred on a number of grounds, including the statute of
limitations. Appellant was served with
notice of the demurrers, then with notice of a continued hearing date on the
motions. He did not file any opposition,
and did not appear for the hearing. On June 9, 2011, the trial court granted
all three demurrers on statute of limitations grounds. Appellant's motions for reconsideration were
denied, and judgment was entered in defendants' favor.
judgment and all other rulings.
Appellant
makes many arguments on appeal, generally concerning a related case order, the
transfer of the case, and the conduct of the trial judge and attorneys for the
defendants.
He makes no
argument concerning statute of
limitations except to say that the process of complaining about the
Department of Transportation's unspecified violations takes time, and that the
child support order was continuing.
We find
nothing in these arguments which establishes that the trial court's ruling was
in error. Further, issues not raised in
the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (
Planning Com. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 412, 417), unless there is a public policy
or other exception, and there is none here.
466, 481; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th
843, 846.)
The
judgment is thus affirmed.
Disposition
The
judgment is affirmed. Respondents to
recover costs on appeal.
ARMSTRONG,
J.
We
concur:
TURNER, P. J.
MOSK, J.
that we take judicial notice of various of this court's docket entries
concerning that litigation is granted.
lawsuit. Judgment was entered in her
favor after her demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, on grounds of
statute of limitations. She has not
filed a brief on appeal.
