Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/08/2021 at 01:02:19 (UTC).

HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE, INC. VS RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, ESQ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/10/2019 HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, ESQ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6387

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE INC.

Defendants

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND ESQ

DARKOWSKI ROBIN

RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN A PROF LAW CORP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SEUTHE ERIC B

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/2/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/2/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

12/14/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/14/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

12/21/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Complaint - Complaint

7/10/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

7/10/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/10/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

7/10/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7/10/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2022
  • Hearing07/13/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • Hearing09/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 09/20/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymond Ghermezian, A Prof Law Corp (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 11/02/2020; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 11/02/2020; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant); Raymond Ghermezian, A Prof Law Corp (Defendant); Robin Darkowski (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant); Raymond Ghermezian, A Prof Law Corp (Defendant); Robin Darkowski (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant); Raymond Ghermezian, A Prof Law Corp (Defendant); Robin Darkowski (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06387    Hearing Date: April 8, 2021    Dept: 26

High Desert Medical Office, Inc. v. Ghermezian, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Raymond Ghermezian, Esq.’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

THE COURT WILL NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION’S MOTION TO QUASH. DEFENDANT RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION MAY SEPARATELY MOVE TO QUASH UPON PAYMENT OF FIRST APPEARANCE FEES AND RESERVATION OF A HEARING DATE.

DEFENDANT RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, ESQ. IS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On July 10, 2021, Plaintiff High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for breach of contract and related claims against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq. (“Defendant Ghermezian”) and Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation (“Defendant Ghermezian Corp.”). Plaintiff filed proofs of substitute service on November 2, 2020.

On February 24, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 17, 2021.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Motion to Quash is purportedly brought by both Defendants but only one appearance fee has been paid. The reservation page indicates that the Motion to Quash was filed by Defendant Ghermezian. (Motion, p. 14.) Therefore, only Defendant Ghermezian has appeared in this action and the Motion to Quash will only be considered as to that Defendant.

Defendant Ghermezian moves to quash service of the Summons and Complaint on the grounds that the papers that were not properly served by personal or substitute service. Where service is challenged, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the facts requisite to an effective service. “When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; see also Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.)

Plaintiff argues there is a presumption of proper service upon the filing of a proof of service. This is true “if the proof of service complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1442.) The Motion to Quash does not point to any non-compliance apparent from the face of the proof of service. In order to overcome the presumption of proper service, Defendant Ghermezian contends that the person to whom the papers were delivered, “Jacqueline, Raymond’s Assistant,” was not authorized to accept service and is not in charge of his office. (Motion, Ghermezian Decl., ¶14.)

Defendant Ghermezian’s self-serving statement that his assistant is not in charge of his office cannot overcome the presumption of proper service here. Indeed, Defendant Ghermezian’s declaration that “[n]o one other than me is authorized to accept service of a lawsuit on behalf of myself” appears designed to limit all methods of service other than personal service. (Ibid.) Clearly, the service statutes do not contemplate that a party can unilaterally limit the manner of service in this way.

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 states in relevant part that substitute service may be effectuated as an alternative to personal service at a party’s office or usual mailing address “with the person who is apparently in charge thereof” or at the party’s usual place of business “in the presence of . . . a person apparently in charge of his or her office.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subds. (a), (b).) There is no objection from Defendant Ghermezian that the location where the Summons and Complaint were left was not his office, usual mailing address, or usual place of business. The declaration of diligence attached to the proof of service states that on October 30, 2020, the process server was greeted by the receptionist who called for Defendant Ghermezian’s assistant, Jacqueline. (Proof of Substitute Service, filed 11/2/20, Seuthe Decl., ¶8.) The assistant accepted service of the papers. (Ibid.) That the receptionist treated the assistant as the person to make the decision regarding acceptance of the Summons and Complaint is sufficient to show that Defendant Ghermezian’s assistant was “apparently in charge” of the office at the time of service.

Therefore, Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating service of the Summons and Complaint in conformity with the statutory requirements.

Additionally, the Court finds that the Motion to Quash is not timely. A motion to quash must be made by the last day for a party to file a responsive pleading, or within any further time the court allows for good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).) Service being effectuated by November 12, 2020, the last day for Defendant Ghermezian to respond to the Complaint was December 12, 2020. Defendant Ghermezian has not demonstrated good cause for extending the time to bring the Motion to Quash.

Conclusion

Defendant Raymond Ghermezian, Esq.’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

THE COURT WILL NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION’S MOTION TO QUASH. DEFENDANT RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION MAY SEPARATELY MOVE TO QUASH UPON PAYMENT OF FIRST APPEARANCE FEES AND RESERVATION OF A HEARING DATE.

DEFENDANT RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, ESQ. IS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN A PROF LAW CORP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LAW OFFICES OF ERIC BRYAN SEUTHE