Lyasko v. Evgeny Aleksandrovich Chernyshev

Background

Lyasko asserted claims against Chernyshev arising from two personal guarantees that Lyasko signed in 2020 for loans made to AAE. The opinion states that Lyasko alleged he relied on financial information Chernyshev presented to banks. Lyasko also alleged that Chernyshev’s fraud began two months after Lyasko signed the second guarantee, in December 2020.

The complaint was filed in state court in September 2025 and later proceeded in federal court. Lyasko argued that he did not suffer harm until 2025, when a Russian bankruptcy court charged him for AAE’s debts. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the alleged fraud caused injury no later than Sberbank’s first attempt to collect from Lyasko as a guarantor, which occurred before August 2022.

Statute of Limitations

The court held that a three-year filing deadline applied to Lyasko’s fraud claim and to his unjust-enrichment and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims to the extent they were based on fraud. The deadline began when Lyasko suspected, or reasonably should have suspected, that wrongdoing caused an injury.

The court took judicial notice of Russian court proceedings in which Lyasko argued that Sberbank could not collect under the guarantees because they were invalid based on Chernyshev’s fraud. The Russian court issued a decision in August 2022. The court concluded that Lyasko therefore was on notice of the alleged fraud by that point, even if he did not yet know its full extent or nature. The three-year period had consequently expired by August 2025, before Lyasko began this action in September 2025.

The court also rejected Lyasko’s arguments for extending the filing deadline. It found that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply because Lyasko did not allege a pattern of frequent, similar acts producing a series of small harms that made the date of injury uncertain. The court also found that the complaint did not support extending the deadline through equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment.

Pleading Deficiencies

Although the time bar independently supported dismissal, the court addressed certain deficiencies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity. First, the court stated that fraud occurring after Lyasko signed a guarantee could not have fraudulently induced him to sign it. Lyasko argued at oral argument that the later fraud induced him not to invalidate the guarantees, but the court found that the complaint did not allege facts supporting that theory.

Second, the court found that Lyasko did not identify with sufficient particularity the misrepresentations Chernyshev allegedly made to him. The complaint stated generally that Lyasko relied on financial data and information Chernyshev presented to the banks.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

Judge Lin granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed all of Lyasko’s claims with leave to amend. The court stated that Lyasko might be able to add allegations supporting equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment. The court also stated that, if Lyasko clarifies that he is bringing claims under Russian law, California’s filing deadline might not apply. The complaint did not clearly notify the defendant that Lyasko was asserting Russian-law claims, and some allegations expressly referenced California law.

The court ordered Lyasko to file any amended complaint by March 24, 2026. The amended complaint may not add new claims or parties, or otherwise change the allegations, except to correct the deficiencies identified in the order, unless the court permits the change or the parties stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court further stated that, if Chernyshev intends to seek dismissal based on the more convenient forum being elsewhere or on exclusive jurisdiction in a Russian bankruptcy court, he must file that motion by April 7, 2026.