Where this court issued a capias after plaintiff Yuri Sasson disobeyed a lawful court order, and also granted defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend, a motion by plaintiff’s son, Ilan, to reconsider the dismissal is denied.
This court previously sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend and denied plaintiff Yuri Sasson’s motion to reconsider “based on the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine.” The court issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice as to both plaintiffs on Dec. 4, 2020.
The court, upon consideration of plaintiff Ilan Sasson’s brief in support of reconsideration and defendant’s opposing brief, denies the motion to reconsider and reinstates the Dec. 4, 2020 dismissal order.
“Plaintiff fails to establish an actual controversy between himself and the Defendant. ‘The purpose of a declaratory judgment proceeding is the adjudication of rights; an actual controversy is a prerequisite to a court having authority. If there is no actual controversy between the parties regarding the adjudication of rights, the declaratory judgment is an advisory opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction to render.
“The prerequisites for jurisdiction, an actual controversy regarding the adjudication of rights, may be collectively referred to as the requirement of a ‘justiciable controversy.’ …
“Plaintiff takes issue with a capias entered by the Court because his father has willfully disobeyed a valid court order. Plaintiff cannot establish a justiciable controversy between himself and the Defendant.
“Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff’s amended affidavit establishes a justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff still fails to establish standing to sue either in his own right or in a representative capacity. The capias does not direct the detention of anyone other than Yuri Sasson, a fugitive from justice. Plaintiff’s complaint is akin to a family member of a subject of an arrest warrant collaterally complaining of inconvenience when choosing to travel with that subject.
“Under certain circumstances, a plaintiff can assert a third party right if he could show ‘that the party seeking standing must show that they themselves have suffered an injury and then further demonstrate a close relationship with the person who possesses the right and a hindrance to the possessor’s ability to protect his own interests.’ …
“However, Plaintiff cannot, at a minimum, meet the standard of a hindrance to Yuri Sasson’s ability to protect his own interests. Yuri Sasson’s only hindrance is his continued willful disobedience of a lawful court order, which he chooses to attack from afar, as opposed to submitting to the order and attacking it thereafter.”
The motion to reconsider is denied. The order that sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case with prejudice is reinstated.
Sasson, et al. v. Shenhar, Case No. CL-2020-5997, Jan. 21, 2021, Fairfax County Cir. Ct. (Kassabian). Joel R. Zuckerman for plaintiffs, Michael E. Kinney for defendant. VLW 021-8-014, 3 pp.