This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/17/2021 at 01:20:17 (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

  • 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 Attorneys

SEUTHE ERIC BRYAN ESQ.

SEUTHE ERIC B

Defendant Attorneys

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND ESQ.

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND

 

Court Documents

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

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

Summons - Summons on Complaint

7/10/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

7/10/2019: Complaint - Complaint

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

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 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

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

Reply (name extension) - Reply Amended reply

9/20/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply Amended reply

Reply (name extension) - Reply to plaintiff opposition

9/20/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to plaintiff opposition

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

9/14/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of High Desert Medical...)

9/8/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of High Desert Medical...)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' SPECI

8/20/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' SPECI

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FORM INTERROGATO

8/20/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FORM INTERROGATO

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

8/20/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

8/20/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/28/2021
  • Hearing12/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • Hearing11/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses to ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses to ...) of 10/04/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Plaintiff's Further Responses to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants' and Its Counsel of Record scheduled for 10/04/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 10/04/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Plaintiff's Further Responses to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants' and Its Counsel of Record: Filed By: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant); Result: Off Calendar; Result Date: 10/04/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Plaintiff's Further Responses to Defendants' Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants' and Its Counsel of Record: Filed By: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant); Result: Off Calendar; Result Date: 10/04/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Plaintiff's Further Responses to Defendants' Requests for Admission (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants' and Its Counsel of Record: Filed By: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq (Defendant); Result: Off Calendar; Result Date: 10/04/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Entered on 04/22/2021 Against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq. and Raymond Ghermezian, a Prof. Law Corp.: Name Extension: Entered on 04/22/2021 Against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq. and Raymond Ghermezian, a Prof. Law Corp. As To Parties changed from High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff) to High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
103 More Docket Entries
  • 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

b'

Case Number: 19STLC06387 Hearing Date: October 4, 2021 Dept: 26

High Desert Medical Office, Inc. v. Ghermezian,\r\net al. 19STLC06387

MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.290)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Raymond\r\nGhermezian’s (1) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories And\r\nRequest For Sanctions; (2) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special\r\nInterrogatories And Request For Sanctions; (3) Motion To Compel Further\r\nResponses To Requests For Admission Of Documents And Request For Sanctions; And\r\n(4) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Request For Production And Request\r\nFor Sanctions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

On July 10, 2021, Plaintiff\r\nHigh Desert Medical Office, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed\r\nthe Complaint in this action for breach of contract and related claims against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq.\r\n(“Defendant Ghermezian”), Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation (“Defendant Ghermezian Corp.”) and Robin Darowski (“Defendant Darowski”) (collectively,\r\n“Defendants”).

On\r\nApril 22, 2021, the Court entered Defendants Ghermezian and Ghermezian Corp.’s\r\ndefault. (Request for Entry of Default, 04/22/21.) Defendant Ghermezian filed\r\nthe instant Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses and Request for\r\nSanctions on August 20, 2021. Moving Defendant Ghermezian being in default, the\r\nMotions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Court\r\nclerk to give notice.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'b"

Case Number: 19STLC06387 Hearing Date: September 30, 2021 Dept: 26

High Desert Medical Office, Inc. v. Ghermezian,\r\net al. 19STLC06387

MOTION TO BE\r\nRELIEVED AS COUNSEL

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 284(2); CRC\r\nRule 3.1362)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motion of Raymond Ghermezian, Esq.\r\nof Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation, to be Relieved as\r\nCounsel for Defendant Robin Darkowski, is GRANTED. THE PROPOSED ORDER HAS BEEN\r\nSUBMITTED. RULING TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE DEMONTRATING\r\nSERVICE OF THE SIGNED AND CORRECTED ORDER UPON ALL PARTIES.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice to client and all parties.

MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2025.450)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Robin\r\nDarkowski’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff’s Person Most\r\nKnowledgeable and Production of Document; and Request for Sanctions is PLACED\r\nOFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 10, 2021, Plaintiff\r\nHigh Desert Medical Office, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed\r\nthe Complaint in this action for breach of contract and related claims against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq.\r\n(“Defendant Ghermezian”), Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation (“Defendant Ghermezian Corp.”) and Robin Darowski (“Defendant Darowski”) (collectively,\r\n“Defendants”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nApril 8, 2021, the Court denied Defendant Ghermezian’s Motion to Quash Service\r\nof the Summons and Complaint. (Minute Order, 04/08/21.) The Court also declined\r\nto rule on Defendant Ghermezian Corp.’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons\r\nand Complaint. (Ibid.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to give notice of the\r\nruling and for Defendant Ghermezian to file a responsive pleading within ten\r\n(10) days’ service of the ruling. (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nApril 22, 2021, after an initial rejection, the Court entered Defendants\r\nGhermezian and Ghermezian Corp.’s default. (Request for Entry of Default,\r\n04/22/21.) On April 23, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel\r\nDeposition of Plaintiff’s Person Most Knowledgable and Request for Sanctions on\r\nJuly 21, 2021. The Motion initially came for hearing on September 8, 2021 and\r\nwas continued at Defendants’ request to September 30, 2021. (Minute Order, 09/08/21.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

No new papers nor opposition have been filed to date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Default having been entered against Defendants Ghermezian\r\nand Ghermezian Corp. on April 22, 2021, they have no standing to bring the\r\ninstant Motion to Compel Deposition. (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\r\n(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301 [entry of default cuts off the defendant's\r\nright to take further affirmative steps such as filing a pleading or motion].)\r\nTherefore, the Motion to Compel Deposition is brought only by Defendant\r\nDarowski.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Following oral argument\r\nfrom defense counsel at the initial hearing date, the Court continued the\r\nhearing to September 30, 2021. (Minute Order, 09/08/21.) Defendant Darkowski was ordered to give\r\nnotice of the continuance. (Ibid.) To date, Defendant Darkowski\r\nhas not filed proof of service of notice of the continued hearing date.\r\nAccordingly, the hearing is placed off calendar.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Robin\r\nDarkowski’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff’s Person Most\r\nKnowledgeable and Production of Document; and Request for Sanctions is PLACED\r\nOFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Court clerk to\r\ngive notice.

"b"

Case Number: 19STLC06387 Hearing Date: September 27, 2021 Dept: 26

High Desert Medical Office, Inc. v. Ghermezian,\r\net al. 19STLC06387

MOTION\r\nFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2025.420)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Robin Darkowski’s Motion for Protective Order is\r\nDENIED. NEITHER PARTY TO BE AWARDED SANCTIONS.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 10, 2021, Plaintiff\r\nHigh Desert Medical Office, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed\r\nthe Complaint in this action for breach of contract and related claims against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq.\r\n(“Defendant Ghermezian”), Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation (“Defendant Ghermezian Corp.”) and Robin Darowski (“Defendant Darowski”) (collectively,\r\n“Defendants”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nApril 8, 2021, the Court denied Defendant Ghermezian’s Motion to Quash Service\r\nof the Summons and Complaint. (Minute Order, 04/08/21.) The Court also declined\r\nto rule on Defendant Ghermezian Corp.’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons\r\nand Complaint. (Ibid.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to give notice of the\r\nruling and for Defendant Ghermezian to file a responsive pleading within ten\r\n(10) days’ service of the ruling. (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nApril 22, 2021, after an initial rejection, the Court entered Defendants\r\nGhermezian and Ghermezian Corp.’s default. (Request for Entry of Default,\r\n04/22/21.) On April 23, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants filed the instant Motion for Protective\r\nOrder and Request for Sanctions on June 4, 2021. Plaintiff filed an opposition\r\non September 14, 2021 and Defendants replied on September 20, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Default having been entered against Defendants Ghermezian\r\nand Ghermezian Corp. on April 22, 2021, they have no standing to bring the\r\ninstant Motion for Protective Order. (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\r\n(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301 [entry of default cuts off the defendant's\r\nright to take further affirmative steps such as filing a pleading or motion].)\r\nTherefore, the Motion for Protective Order is brought only by Defendant\r\nDarowski.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that\r\njustice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or\r\norganization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue\r\nburden and expense.” (Code Civ. Pro., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) The Motion is\r\npurportedly brought by all Defendants in this action on the grounds that\r\nPlaintiff insisted on deposing all Defendants in this action and in LASC Case No. 19STLC06388 on the same\r\ndate. (Motion, Ghermezian Decl., Exhs. A-H.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

It appears that while the parties were scheduling the\r\ndepositions, neither side realized Defendants Ghermezian and Ghermezian Corp.\r\nwere in default and are not subject to the depositions as noticed. Third-party\r\ndepositions can only be sought by deposition subpoena. (See Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2020.310, 2020.510.) There is no evidence of valid deposition subpoenas to\r\nwhich Ghermezian and Ghermezian Corp. are currently subject. Therefore, the\r\ndispute evidenced by the parties’ meet and confer letters is non-existent and\r\ndoes not need to be resolved pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n2025.420.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. NEITHER PARTY TO\r\nBE AWARDED SANCTIONS.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Court clerk to give notice.

"b"

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

High Desert Medical Office, Inc. v. Ghermezian,\r\net al. 19STLC06387

MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2025.450)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Robin\r\nDarkowski’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff’s Person Most\r\nKnowledgeable and Production of Document; and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED\r\nAS TO APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITOIN AND DENIED AS TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PLAINTIFF’S\r\nPERSON MOST KNOWLEDGABLE IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION WITHIN 20 DAYS’\r\nSERVICE OF THIS ORDER, AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PLAINTIFF AND\r\nCOUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00\r\nTO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 10, 2021, Plaintiff\r\nHigh Desert Medical Office, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed\r\nthe Complaint in this action for breach of contract and related claims against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq.\r\n(“Defendant Ghermezian”), Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation (“Defendant Ghermezian Corp.”) and Robin Darowski (“Defendant Darowski”) (collectively,\r\n“Defendants”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nApril 8, 2021, the Court denied Defendant Ghermezian’s Motion to Quash Service\r\nof the Summons and Complaint. (Minute Order, 04/08/21.) The Court also declined\r\nto rule on Defendant Ghermezian Corp.’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons\r\nand Complaint. (Ibid.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to give notice of the\r\nruling and for Defendant Ghermezian to file a responsive pleading within ten\r\n(10) days’ service of the ruling. (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nApril 22, 2021, after an initial rejection, the Court entered Defendants\r\nGhermezian and Ghermezian Corp.’s default. (Request for Entry of Default,\r\n04/22/21.) On April 23, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel\r\nDeposition of Plaintiff’s Person Most Knowledgable and Request for Sanctions on\r\nJuly 21, 2021. No opposition has been filed to date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Default having been entered against Defendants Ghermezian\r\nand Ghermezian Corp. on April 22, 2021, they have no standing to bring the\r\ninstant Motion to Compel Deposition. (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\r\n(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301 [entry of default cuts off the defendant's\r\nright to take further affirmative steps such as filing a pleading or motion].)\r\nTherefore, the Motion to Compel Deposition is brought only by Defendant Darowski.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states\r\nin relevant part:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If, after service of a deposition\r\nnotice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or\r\nemployee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party\r\nunder Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section\r\n2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce\r\nfor inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible\r\nthing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move\r\nfor an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the\r\nproduction for inspection of any document, electronically stored information,\r\nor tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must\r\nalso “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for\r\ninspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing\r\ndescribed in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer\r\ndeclaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1),\r\n(2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is\r\ngranted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial\r\njustification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction\r\nunjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Darowski set Plaintiff’s PMK deposition for June\r\n23, 2021 by notice served on June 2, 2021. (Motion, Ghermezian Decl., Exh. L.)\r\nOn June 17, 2021, Plaintiff served an objection on various grounds, including\r\nthat the deposition was unilaterally scheduled and that “Plaintiff maintains\r\npriority of deposition discovery.” (Id. at Exh. M.) Defense counsel\r\nsought to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel about these objections by\r\nasking for dates on which Plaintiff’s PMK was available and disagreeing about\r\n“priority of deposition discovery.” (Id. at Exhs. N-P.) The attorneys\r\nwent back and forth several times with defense counsel asking for deposition\r\ndates and Plaintiff’s counsel indicting that dates would be provided after\r\nDefendants’ depositions were complete. (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on this meet and confer effort, and Plaintiff’s\r\nrefusal to provide deposition dates for its PMK until Defendants completed\r\ntheir depositions, Defendant Darowski is entitled to an order compelling\r\nPlaintiff’s PMK to sit for deposition. There is no legal basis to refuse to cooperate\r\nin setting deposition dates based on “deposition priority.” However, Defendant\r\nDarowski has not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s PMK can be compelled to produce\r\ndocuments at the deposition. Plaintiff specifically objected to the document\r\nrequests and the Motion does not “set forth specific facts showing good cause\r\njustifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored\r\ninformation, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice,” as required\r\nby the moving statute.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Darkowski is also entitled to an award of\r\nsanctions based on the order compelling Plaintiff’s PMK’s appearance. Under a\r\nlodestar calculation, Defendant Darkowski is awarded $460.00 based on one hour\r\nof attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 motion filing fee.\r\n(Id. at ¶20.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Robin\r\nDarkowski’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff’s Person Most Knowledgeable\r\nand Production of Document; and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO\r\nAPPEARANCE AT DEPOSITOIN AND DENIED AS TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PLAINTIFF’S\r\nPERSON MOST KNOWLEDGABLE IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION WITHIN 20 DAYS’\r\nSERVICE OF THIS ORDER, AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PLAINTIFF AND\r\nCOUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00\r\nTO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to\r\ngive notice.

"

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 represented by Lawyer LAW OFFICES OF ERIC BRYAN SEUTHE