Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV34289, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34289    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Patrick Nazemi (“Moving Defendant”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) intentional fraudulent transfer; (2) fraudulent transfer; (3) transfer resulting in debtor’s insolvency; (4) common law fraudulent transfer; (5) aiding and abetting fraudulent transfer; (6) declaratory relief; and (7) unjust enrichment.

On November 21, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (the “Motion”) requesting that the Court dismiss the Complaint as to all named Defendants for failure to prosecute the action on the grounds that service was not effectuated on them within two years of the Complaint being filed.  The Motion alternatively requested that the Court quash service of summons for Defendants California Corporation (“MedLegal Corp.”); Med-Legal Associates, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company (“MedLegal LLC”); MLA Money Purchase Pension Plan, a business entity form unknown (“MMPPP”); MLA Defined Benefit Pension Plan, a business entity form unknown (“MDBPP”); US Risk Insurance Company, a Utah Corporation (“USRIC”); So Cal Practice Management, Inc., a Montana Corporation (“SCPM”); GLC Operations, Inc., a California Corporation (“GLCO”); GLCI, Inc., a California Corporation (“GLCI”); So Cal Practice Management, Inc., a California Corporation (“SCPMC”) and Medlink

Alliance, Inc., a California Corporation (“Medlink Allliance”) (collectively, the “Entity Defendants”). 

On January 5, 2023, the Court denied the Motion to the extent that it sought dismissal of the entire action.  The Court ordered that Plaintiff and Moving Defendant to file supplemental information regarding whether Moving Defendant was properly served with the Complaint on behalf of the Entity Defendants.  The Court alternatively allowed Plaintiff to re-serve the Entity Defendants with the Complaint by February 10, 2023. 

On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration indicating that his counsel’s efforts to serve the Entity Defendants have been thwarted by the onset of a disabling eye condition.  (See Declaration of Howard A. Kapp (“Kapp Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-5.)  Kapp hired a licensed process server to serve the Entity Defendants but was not sure of the status of service.  (Kapp Decl. ¶ 7.)  The Kapp Declaration does not include government documents that support the contention that Moving Defendant was the proper party to be served on any of the Entity Defendants’ behalf.

On February 14, 2023, Proofs of Service were filed for Defendants SCPMM and SCPMC.  On February 16, 2023, a Proof of Service was filed for Defendant MedLegal LLC.

Although the Proofs of Service for SCPMM, SCPMC, and MedLegal LLC were not served by February 10, 2023, the Court notes that each of these Entity Defendants has subsequently filed an answer to the Complaint.  The Motion is thus MOOT as to SCPMM, SCPMC, and Med-Legal LLC.  Due to the lack of evidence that Moving Defendant was properly served with the Complaint on behalf of the remainder of the Entity Defendants, the Court otherwise GRANTS the Motion to quash service of the Complaint and Summons.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 16th day of March 2023