Cardenas vs. Index Architecture and Designing L.L.C.

The 8/24/26 CMC is continued to 12/7/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Defendants shall give notice.

304 Cardenas vs. The motion of specially appearing defendant Index Vasken Tatarian, individually and as Trustee of the Architecture and 2021 Sarkis Tatarian Revocable Trust (Vasken), to Designing quash service of summons by publication is L.L.C. GRANTED as set forth below.

Vasken’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Evid. Code § 452(d); Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264.)

Vasken’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

As an initial matter, the argument of plaintiff Cayetano Cardenas, an individual doing business as CR Steel Fabricators & Erectors Co (Plaintiff), that the notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (b), is not well-taken. In the reply, Vasken confirmed the August 24, 2026 hearing date was the date provided to him by the court’s own motion hearing reservation system. (Tatarian Reply Decl., ¶ 2; Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. A.)

As to the merits, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50, subdivision (b), the court’s December 11, 2025 order for publication required a copy of the summons and complaint to be mailed to Vasken if his address was ascertained before expiration of the time prescribed for publication. (See ROA 119.) The application for publication confirms Vasken’s address was known to Plaintiff before expiration of the time prescribed for publication and indeed prior to the application

being filed with the court. (See ROA 117.) Plaintiff failed to file a proof of service showing the summons and complaint were mailed to Vasken as required by section 415.50, subdivision (b). Service by publication was thus defective for failure to comply with the statutory requirements for such service.

In the Opposition, Plaintiff essentially concedes service was defective as it states “Plaintiff does not seek to rely on that completed publication service to establish personal jurisdiction” over Vasken. The service by publication is therefore QUASHED.

In terms of the publication order, the application for publication confirms Plaintiff has ascertained Vasken’s current residential address and two rental property addresses for Vasken. (See ROA 117.) The application, however, made no showing Plaintiff could not, with reasonable diligence, serve Vasken by mail with acknowledgment of receipt under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, at any of these addresses. Plaintiff thus failed to show Vasken could not reasonably be served “in another manner” specified in the Code of Civil Procedure. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50(a); Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Hendrix (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 740, 745.)

The court will therefore VACATE its December 11, 2025 publication order.

Vasken’s request that Plaintiff be precluded from further attempting service of summons is unsupported by the authorities cited and is therefore DENIED.

The court notes this matter has been pending for almost two years without proper service on Vasken. Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420 provides for discretionary dismissal if “[s]ervice is not made within two years after the action is commenced

against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420(a)(1).) The court thus deems it appropriate to set an order to show cause regarding service on Vasken.

An Order to Show Cause re: why the complaint as to Vasken Tatarian, in his individual capacity and as trustee, should not be dismissed for failure to properly serve him within two years after the action was commenced, is scheduled for 10/5/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24. The 8/24/26 CMC is continued to 10/5/26 at 8:45am.

The clerk of the court shall give notice of this ruling.

305 Riazadi vs. Before the court is a demurrer filed by defendants Joshi Vinit Joshi (Joshi individually) and Global Implant Dentistry (Global individually; Defendants together) to plaintiff Nuri Riazadi’s (Riazadi or Plaintiff) First Amended Complaint (FAC). The demurrer is SUSTAINED.

As to causes of action numbers 1 – 7, those causes of action appear barred by the doctrine of res judicata based upon the entry of judgment by default in the matter of Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01380242-CU-FR-CJC (Global Case). (Demurrer, Request to Take Judicial Notice, Exs. A and D.) The claims in the Global Case and the present matter are identical, final judgment has been entered in the Global Case, and Plaintiff and Defendants were all parties to both actions. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 788, 797.)

The original complaint also sought payments which were billed by non-party 3Dex for services it allegedly rendered, however 3Dex is not a party to this action. Although Plaintiff now alleges 3Dex was not registered in any state at the time the oral