Yalcin Ayasli v. Sezgin Baran Korkmaz

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-09388
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Kevin Lally David Gelfand Robert Miller Nafiz Cekirge Proceedings: ZOOM HEARING RE: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF YALCIN AYASLI’S MOTION FOR LIMITED LIFT OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS (Dkt. 199, filed on June 30, 2025) I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court is the motion of plaintiff Yalcin Ayash (“plaintiff or “Ayasli’”) for a limited lifting of the Court’s stay of this case so that plaintiff may file a second amended complaint and to permit the litigation of procedural and jurisdictional motions, while maintaining a stay of merits discovery through the trial of the last related criminal prosecution, United States v. Gngor Termendjian, No. CR 23-453-JLS. Dkt. 199 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff submitted a declaration by his counsel in support of the instant motion. Dkt. 200 (“Decl.”). On July 21, 2025, defendant Sezgin Baran Korkmaz (“Korkmaz”) filed an opposition to the instant motion to lift stay. Dkt. 205 (“Opp.”). Attached as Exhibit A to Korkmaz’s opposition is the United States’ Statement of Interest, in which the government objects to plaintiff's request to partially lift the stay of this action, submitted by the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517. Dkt. 205-1. On August 11, 2025, plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. 209 (“Reply”). On August 25, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the instant motion. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL 1962(c), 1964(c), against all defendants; (2) conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), against all defendants: (3) violation of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Act against all defendants: (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against defendants Korkmaz, Akol, Ozkaraman, SBK Holdings Anonim Sirketi, and Bugaraj Elektronik Ticaret ve Bilistm Hizmetler1 Anonim Sirketi, (5) defamation against Korkmaz; and (6)— (7) invasion of privacy claims against Korkmaz. See generally id. On July 27, 2020, the district court in New Hampshire issued an order determining it lacked jurisdiction over several of the defendants in the case, and it transferred the action to the Central District of California on October 21, 2020. Dkt. 73. On August 2, 2022, this Court ordered plaintiff to show cause no later than September 1, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Dkt. 126. On September 1, 2022, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming several previously-identified “non-party co-conspirators” as defendants. Dkt. 131 (“FAC”). The FAC brings the following claims for relief: (1) violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), against defendants Korkmaz, Lev Aslan Dermen, Jacob Ortell Kingston, Isaiah Kingston, Fatih Akol, Kamil Feridun Ozkaraman, Washakie Renewable Energy, LLC, SBK Holdings A.S., Inc., SBK Holdings USA, Inc., Bugaraj Elektronik Ticaret ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S., and Mega Varlik (the “RICO defendants”); (2) conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), against all defendants; and (3) violations of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act against all defendants. See generally id. On October 17, 2022, defendants Korkmaz, SBK Holdings A.S., Inc., and Bugaraj Elektronik Ticaret ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S. filed a motion for stay of the entire action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘Oo’ Case No. 2:20-cv-09388-CAS-PDx Date August 25, 2025 Title YALCIN AYASLI v. SEZGIN BARAN KORKMAZ, ET AL. Il. LEGAL STANDARD “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 827 (1995). Parallel civil and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable under Ninth Circuit precedent unless such proceedings substantially prejudice the rights of the parties involved. Id. “The decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be made ‘in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.”” Id. (quoting Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989)). The party proposing a stay bears the burden of proving that a stay is warranted. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). A district court is vested with the discretion to stay an action based on its inherent authority to control its own docket. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Although there is no requirement that a court stay a civil action pending the outcome of a related criminal proceeding, a court may choose to do so “when the interests of justice seem | | to require such action.” Keating, 45 F.3d at 324 (quotation marks omitted). In deciding whether to grant a motion to stay civil proceedings in favor of parallel criminal proceedings, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider the “extent to which the defendant’s [F]ifth [A]mendment nghts are implicated.” Id. In addition, Keating instructs that courts should consider the following five factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with the litigation, and the possibility that plaintiffs would be prejudiced by a delay; (2) the burden which the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the civil and criminal litigations. Id. at 324-25. Thus, while the extent to which a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated is a “significant factor” to be considered, it is “only one consideration to be weighed against others.” Id. Nonetheless, other than cases involving bad faith or malice on the part of the government, “the strongest case for deferring civil proceedings until after completion of criminal proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter.”” SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375-76 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In such cases, allowing the civil action to proceed may undermine the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege, expand criminal discovery beyond the limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), expose the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL 22 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1047 (C_D. Cal. 2014) (citing Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 1989)). However, plaintiff's request for a limited lift of stay at this time would not advance the Court’s interests in judicial efficiency because litigation on the merits would remain stayed. Thus, this factor does not weigh in favor of plaintiffs request. E. Interests of Non-Parties The Court gave significant weight to the government’s support of the initial stay of the entire civil action so that the pending criminal actions may resolve without interference. Dkt. 183 at 6. Plaintiff now argues that the government, with full knowledge of its remaining interests, assented to plaintiff's request to lift the stay to allow the civil action to advance by the filing of a second amended complaint the litigation of pre-merits procedural and jurisdictional motion practice. Mot. at 24; Decl. § 63.1 In opposition, Korkmaz points to the government’s statement of interest, stating that the government still favors a stay. Opp. at 6; Dkt. 205-1. The government’s statement of interest acknowledges that it initially agreed to plaintiff's “limited” request to get “purely procedural” matters out of the way. Dkt. 205- 1 at 2. However, after reading plaintiff's motion “filled with speculation masquerading as fact about the charges that Korkmaz has pled to and his status as a government informant,” the government states that it must now object to plaintiffs request “in what should have been a straightforward procedural motion.” Id. The government accuses plaintiff of making baseless statements to frighten Korkmaz and his family. Id. The government identifies several inaccurate assertions from plaintiff's motion, including that Korkmaz has pled guilty to money laundering charges. Id. at 4. The government now opposes plaintiffs request, even for a limited lift of stay, because plaintiffs “fast-and- loose description of Korkmaz’s criminal proceedings will put the Government’s case in jeopardy if the stay is lifted.” Id. Furthermore, the government argues that plaintiff's accusations against Korkmaz invite responses that “put the sealing order in the criminal proceedings at risk,” and “the Government has little faith that Ayasli will not continue to compromise the Government’s case in additional filings.” Id. at 5.

Plaintiff notes that Grigor Termendjian’s counsel supports plaintiffs instant motion for a limited lift of stay. See Decl. Termendyjian is not a party to this case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘Oo’ Case No. 2:20-cv-09388-CAS-PDx Date August 25, 2025 Title YALCIN AYASLI v. SEZGIN BARAN KORKMAZ, ET AL. The Court finds that this factor continues to weigh in favor of maintaining a complete stay of this civil action because “the public [ | has an interest in safeguarding the integrity of criminal proceedings.” Petrov v. Alameda Cnty., No. 16-CV-04323- YGR, 2016 WL 6563355, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (citing SEC v. Nicholas, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1072—73 (C.D. Cal. 2008)). Furthermore, the public’s interest in ensuring that victims of fraud can pursue redress through civil actions would not be advanced by plaintiffs requested limited lifting of the stay of this civil action. The Court concludes that, on balance, Korkmaz’s Fifth Amendment concerns and the Keating factors continue to weigh in favor of the stay so that pending criminal proceedings may resolve without interference. V. CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion to lift the stay of this action for the limited purpose of filing a second amended complaint and litigating procedural and jurisdictional motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 29 Initials of Preparer EMM