Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 01:14:47 (UTC).

GEORGE BOYADZHYAN VS GERAGOS & GERAGOS ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/07/2017 GEORGE BOYADZHYAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GERAGOS GERAGOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID SOTELO and DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1202

  • Filing Date:

    08/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DAVID SOTELO

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BOYADZHYAN GEORGE

Defendants and Respondents

GERAGOS MARK J.

DOES 1 TO 10

GERAGOS & GERAGOS

MEISELAS BEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SACKS LEE ESQ.

SARKISSIAN ALENOUSH CHRISTINA

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GERAGOS & GERAGOS APC

GELDBERG NOAH JACOB

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

2/1/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE

3/2/2018: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF GODADDYICOM, LLC; DECLARATION OF NOAH GELDBERG

8/10/2018: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF GODADDYICOM, LLC; DECLARATION OF NOAH GELDBERG

Minute Order

10/25/2018: Minute Order

Notice

1/14/2019: Notice

Minute Order

1/17/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/31/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/15/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

2/15/2019: Ex Parte Application

Motion for Leave

3/1/2019: Motion for Leave

Order

5/17/2019: Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER

1/10/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

11/6/2017: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

10/23/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

10/16/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

10/12/2017: Unknown

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 1. CANCELLATION OF RETAINER AGREEMENT; ETC.

9/25/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 1. CANCELLATION OF RETAINER AGREEMENT; ETC.

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to Consolidate - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by GEORGE BOYADZHYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Consolidate) of 06/03/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Consolidate)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Reply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Consolidate; Memorandum of Points & Authorities); Filed by GERAGOS & GERAGOS (Defendant); MARK J. GERAGOS (Defendant); BEN MEISELAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Declaration (of Marcus Petoyan In Support of Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Consolidate); Filed by GERAGOS & GERAGOS (Defendant); MARK J. GERAGOS (Defendant); BEN MEISELAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Opposition (Plaintiff George Boyadzyan's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Consolidate); Filed by GEORGE BOYADZHYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Advance The Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Consolidate; Declaration of Noah Geldberg) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Order (Order re Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Advance The Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Consolidate); Filed by GERAGOS & GERAGOS (Defendant); MARK J. GERAGOS (Defendant); BEN MEISELAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Advance The Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Consolidate; Declaration of Noah Geldberg); Filed by GERAGOS & GERAGOS (Defendant); MARK J. GERAGOS (Defendant); BEN MEISELAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
123 More Docket Entries
  • 08/31/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by GEORGE BOYADZHYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by GEORGE BOYADZHYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by GEORGE BOYADZHYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. CANCELLATION OF RETAINER AGREEMENT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by GEORGE BOYADZHYAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC671202    Hearing Date: June 22, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant George Boyadzhyan

OPPOSITION: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Geragos &

Geragos,

Mark Geragos, and

Ben Meiselas

Plaintiff George Boyadzhyan sues Defendants Geragos & Geragos, Mark Geragos, and Ben Meiselas, (collectively, “Geragos”) his former attorneys. In April 2017, Boyadzhyan sought to be represented by Geragos in a dispute he was having with New Vista and LLMS, LLC, (“LLMS”) related to the sale of substance abuse treatment companies. Boyadzhyan instructed Geragos to immediately file a lawsuit against LLMS, because they were threatening to withhold money from him and to sue him. Boyadzhyan issued a check to Geragos in the sum of $100,000. Boyadzhyan was given a retainer agreement by Geragos. According to Boyadzhyan, the check was to be held in trust until he signed the retainer agreement. Boyadzhyan states that Geragos failed to file the lawsuit against LLMS as instructed and instead LLMS filed a lawsuit against him. In June 2017, Boyadzhyan terminated Geragos as his counsel. Boyadzhyan alleges that Geragos failed to return his money and forged his signature on the retainer agreement. Conversely, Geragos states that the $100,000 was a nonrefundable retainer and that during April 2017 through June 2017, they performed legal services on behalf of Boyadzhyan in the amount of $109,183.

On March 16, 2018, Boyadzhyan filed the operative second amended complaint (Case No. BC671202) (“SAC”), alleging, among 7 other causes of action, malpractice action.

On May 6, 2019, Geragos filed a Complaint (Case No. 19STCV15685), which has been consolidated with this action, against Boyadzhyan alleging:

1) Quantum Meruit;

2) Defamation;

3) Fraud.

Geragos now brings this summary adjudication as to the quantum meruit claim should be granted because they satisfy all the elements of the claim.

Objections: Boyadzhyan moves to strike several of the undisputed material facts contained in Geragos’ separate statement on the ground that they are not material facts but rather evidence. The objection is OVERRULED.

Boyadzhyan also objects to UMF Nos. 13 and 14. The objections are OVERRULED.

Geragos states that summary adjudication of the quantum meruit claim should be granted because they satisfy all the elements of the claim.

First Cause of Action: Quantum Meruit

The elements for quantum meruit are:

Geragos claims that Boyadzhyan owes it money services rendered. To establish this claim, Plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. That Boyadzhyan requested, by words or conduct, that Geragos perform services for the benefit of Boyadzhyan;

2. That Geragos performed the services as requested;

3. That Boyadzhyan has not paid Geragos for the services; and

4. The reasonable value of the services that were provided.” (CACI 371)

Geragos has met its initial burden. Boyadzhyan requested that Geragos represent him in his legal dispute. (UMF No. 4.) Geragos performed legal services in representing Boyadzhyan. (UMF No. 5.) Geragos states that Boyadzhyan failed to pay for their services and that the reasonable value of the services was $109,183. (UMF No. 9, 11.) The burden shifts to Boyadzhyan.

  1. Payment of Services

Boyadzhyan disputes the third element of the claim, i.e., that he did not pay Geragos. Boyadzhyan states that he paid Geragos a $100,000 fee and that the retainer agreement that contains his signature is a forgery. Boyadzhyan contends that Geragos’ motion ignores the threshold issue of whether the fee was a true retainer, a nonrefundable amount paid solely to secure the availability of an attorney. Boyadzhyan argues that fee was not a true retainer because the retainer agreement states that it is both a fixed fee (a fixed amount for the services rendered) and a true retainer. The agreement in relevant part states:

“Client agrees to pay Attorney a fixed fee of $100,000.00, which shall be paid upon signing of the Agreement. Said Fee is a TRUE RETAINER which covers not only the legal services to be rendered, but also secures Attorney's representation and reputation to assist you with this matter. A TRUE RETAINER is not based upon actual time spent on the case or the number of hours billed. Rather, the Fee ensures the availability of a high-profile and nationally recognized law firm to represent Client in the above-referenced matter. The Fee is NOT REFUNDABLE…”

The Court finds that Boyadzhyan has met his burden to demonstrate that there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether he paid for Geragos’ services. The outcome of this claim depends on the interpretation of the retainer agreement. If the Court determines that the true retainer was actually a fixed fee agreement, then Boyadzhyan has already paid for Geragos’ service by tendering the $100,000 fee. Without first addressing whether there was a valid agreement and what the terms of the agreement were the Court cannot resolve the quantum meruit claim. Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

  1. Reasonable Value of Services

Boyadzhyan also disputes the fourth element of the claim, i.e., the reasonable value of Geragos’ services.

The Court finds that Geragos has met their initial burden. Geragos provides their billings which state that 127.33 hours were spent on the matter with hourly rates ranging from $350 to $1,500. (Geragos, Ex. 3.) Geragos declares that the hourly rates are reasonable based on their legal expertise. The burden shifts to Boyadzhyan.

The Court finds that Boyadzhyan has met his burden and demonstrated a triable issue of material fact exists as to the reasonable value of Geragos’ services. Boyadzhyan has provided the declaration of his own expert who reviewed Geragos’ billing statements, who indicates that the hourly rate is above the market rate and that the issues involved in the matter were not particularly novel or complex to warrant such a rate. (Boyadzhyan, Ex C., pg. 8.) Boyadzhyan also disputes the billing statement on the ground that it was generated two years after the work was performed rather than at the time the work was actually performed. In their reply, Geragos states that the high hourly rate is warranted because of the skill and expertise of their attorneys. However, the Court believes that it is up to the trier of fact to determine if the above market hourly rate was reasonable

Conclusion: Geragos’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Geragos & Geragos is a litigant