Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/31/2021 at 00:55:20 (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 JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6388

  • 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

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE INC.

Defendants

RAZI OMID ESQ

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND ESQ

RAZI LAW GROUP APLC

RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN A PROF LAW CORP

MORENO CARMEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SEUTHE ERIC B

Defendant Attorney

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Quash Service

3/17/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Quash Service

Reply (name extension) - Reply to plaintiff's opposition to motion to quash service

3/22/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to plaintiff's opposition to motion to quash service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

3/29/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

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

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

Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

12/14/2020: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

1/6/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

Complaint - Complaint

7/10/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

7/10/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

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

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2022
  • Hearing07/13/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 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 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • Hearing05/24/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 05/24/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 03/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 05/24/2021 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketReply to plaintiff's opposition to motion to quash service; Filed by: RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, A PROF LAW CORP (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Defendant's Motion To Quash Service; Filed by: HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: HIGH DESERT MEDICAL OFFICE, INC. (Plaintiff); As to: Omid Razi, Esq (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. James E. Blancarte 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); Omid Razi, Esq (Defendant) et al.

    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); Omid Razi, Esq (Defendant) et al.

    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); Omid Razi, Esq (Defendant) et al.

    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: 19STLC06388    Hearing Date: March 29, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., March 29, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: High Dessert Medical Office, Inc. v. Raymond Ghermezian, Esq., eta l.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC06388 COMPL. FILED: 07-10-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 08-21-21

MOTION C/O: 09-05-21

TRIAL DATE: 09-20-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq., Raymond Ghermezian, a Professional Law Corp., Omid Razi, and Razi Law Group, APLC

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff High Desert Medical Office

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq, Raymond Ghermezian, a Professional Law Corp., Omid Razi, and Razi Law Group, APLC is CONTINUED TO MAY 24, 2021 AT 10:30 A.M. in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers as requested herein.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on March 17, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on March 22, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff High Desert Medical Office, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit against Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq. (“Raymond”), Raymond Ghermezian, a Professional Law Corp. (“Ghermezian Corp.”), Omid Razi (“Omid”), Razi Law Group, APLC (“Razi Law”), and Carmen Moreno (“Moreno”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Defendants Raymond, Ghermezian Corp., Omid, and Razi Law filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (the “Motion”) on December 14, 2020. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on March 17, 2021 and moving Defendants filed a Reply on March 22.

  1. Legal Standard

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added.) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading plus ten calendar days if substitute-served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3); Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.)

“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.) A proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a presumption of valid service. (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code § 647.) This presumption is rebuttable. (See id.) The party seeking to defeat service of process must present sufficient evidence to show that the service did not take place as stated. (See Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428; cf. People v. Chavez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1483 [“If some fact be presumed, the opponent of that fact bears the burden of producing or going forward with evidence sufficient to overcome or rebut the presumed fact.”].) Merely denying service took place without more is insufficient to overcome the presumption. (See Yadegar, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at 1428.)

III. Discussion

Moving Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service and thus, service should be quashed.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service for Defendants Raymond and Ghermezian Corp. on November 2, 2020 purporting to show they were substitute served on October 30, 2020 by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint with “Jacqueline, Raymond’s Assistant” at 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800, Los Angeles, CA 90010. (11/2/20 Proofs of Service.) The proofs of service also include a declaration of mailing indicating the documents were mailed via first-class mail on November 2, 2020 as well as a declaration of due diligence from Bryan Seuthe, who is not a registered process server. (Id.)

That same day, Plaintiff filed a proof of service purporting to show Defendants Omid and Razi Law Group were substitute served on October 30, 2020 by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint with “Crystal, receptionist” at 8666 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills CA 90211. (11/2/20 Proofs of Service.) The Proofs of service include a declaration of mailing indicating the documents were mailed via first-class mail on November 2, 2020 as well as a declaration of due diligence from Bryan Seuthe. (Id.)

“An individual may be served by substitute service only after a good faith effort at personal service has first been made: the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the summons and complaint ‘cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered’ to defendants. [Citations.] Two or three attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as ‘reasonable diligence.’” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389.) (Italics added.) If the summons and complaint cannot be personally delivered with reasonable diligence, then a copy may be served at the person’s “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box…who shall be informed of the contents thereof and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person to be served…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

The declaration of due diligence executed by Bryan Seuthe attached to Defendant Raymond’s proof of service states he attempted to personally serve him on July 16, 2019, July 30, 2019, and October 30, 2020. (11/2/20 Proof of Service, Bryan Seuthe Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.) The third attempt resulted in substitute service. (Id.) The declaration of due diligence executed by Bryan Seuthe attached to Defendant Omid’s proof of service states he attempted personal service on July 30, 2019, September 2, 2019, and October 30, 2020. (11/2/20 Proof of Service, Bryan Seuthe Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5-8.) The third attempt resulted in substitute service. Three attempts at personal service are sufficient. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389.) Notably, neither Defendant Raymond nor Defendant Omid contends the addresses at which personal service was attempted are improper.

Defendants Raymond and Omid argue the persons identified on the proofs of service were not authorized to accept service on their behalf. (Mot., p. 7:1-7.) Defendants also argue that “an assistant and a receptionist are not persons who are apparently in charge of a place of business.” (Mot., p. 7:1-8.)

As discussed above, “Jacqueline, Raymond’s Assistant” was substitute-served on behalf of Defendant Raymond. (11/2/20 Proof of Service.) The Judicial Council comments for Section 415.20 state that a person apparently in charge of an office includes the “personal secretary of the person to be served.” (Code Civ. Proc., 415.20, Judicial Comments.) Further, Plaintiff provides an additional declaration of Bryan Seuthe wherein he attests that upon his arrival to Defendant Raymond’s office, he requested for a person to accept service for Defendant Raymond. (Mot., Bryan Seuthe Decl., ¶¶ 13-16.) The receptionist stepped into the office and returned with Jacqueline, who described herself as Defendant Raymond’s personal assistant. (Id.) Bryan Seuthe attests he informed Jacqueline he had legal documents related to Plaintiff and further attests Jacqueline affirmed she could accept service on behalf of Defendant Raymond. (Id.) Jacqueline then left with the documents and at no time advised she was unable to accept service of process for Defendant Raymond. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.)

Notably, a person does not have to actually be in charge of an office or a place of business – they need only be apparently in charge. In Bryan Seuthe’s supporting declaration, he states that when he arrived at Defendant Omid’s office, he was greeted by Crystal, a general receptionist. (Oppo., Bryn Seuthe Decl., ¶ 5.) Bryan Seuthe asked for someone who could accept service on behalf of Defendant Omid. (Id. at ¶ 6.) She stated she could accept the documents and Bryan Seuthe proceeded to advise her of the general nature of the documents, specifically that they were a lawsuit related to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 9.) Crystal did not advise process server Bryan Seuthe she was not authorized to accept service. (Id.) Thus, she was apparently in charge of the office.

Defendants Raymond and Omid also argue they never received a copy of the Summons and Complaint by mail. (Mot., p. 7:6-7, Raymond Decl., ¶ 14.) However, not only does the proof of service indicate copies of the Summons and Complaint were mailed, the declaration submitted by Bryan Seuthe submitted in Opposition also attests that the documents were mailed on November 2, 2020 to the same addresses where substitute service occurred. (11/2/20 Proofs of Service; Oppo., Bryan Seuthe Decl., ¶ 19.) The Court finds Defendant Raymond and Omid’s self-serving declaration that the documents were not received via mail insufficient.

However, the proofs of service as to Defendants Razi Law and Ghermezian Corp. do not identify the person served on behalf of the entity. The proofs of service for Defendants Razi Law and Ghermezian Corp. indicate they were served as a business organization form unknown. (11/2/20 Proofs of Service.) However, even where the business organization is a form unknown, Plaintiff must identify the person who was served with the Summons and Complaint by mail on behalf of the entity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.95, subd. (a).) More importantly, service of summons pursuant to this section is not valid for a corporation with a registered agent for service of process listed with the secretary of state. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.95, subd. (b).) Defendants Razi Law and Ghermezian Corp. appear to be corporations.

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the concerns noted above at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing so that the Court may determine whether service on Ghermezian Corp. and Razi Law was appropriate.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Raymond Ghermezian, Esq, Raymond Ghermezian, a Professional Law Corp., Omid Razi, and Razi Law Group, APLC is CONTINUED TO MAY 24, 2021 AT 10:30 A.M. in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers as requested herein.

Moving party is ordered 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