Hurt by a Sand Canyon Wedding Venue That Was Never Allowed to Exist? Here Is Who You Can Sue.

Oasis Ranch House, 27415 Triumph Avenue, told the public it was closed, kept taking bookings, and hosted a 200-guest wedding on October 18 while under an open City zoning case. A residential parcel cannot be licensed as a venue or a bar. Couples who paid for it, guests served there, neighbors trespassed on, and anyone hit by a driver leaving it all have legal options. This is the map.

On Sunday afternoon, October 18, a wedding with an estimated 200 or more guests filled the gated property at 27415 Triumph Avenue in Sand Canyon. Several hundred cars were waved onto the vacant lot at 16350 Valley Ranch Road. When that filled, guests parked on a neighbor’s lawn across the street. The neighbor was not asked. A resident recorded all of it from the public road and called the Sheriff; Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department complaint SCT 26291-0156 was logged.

None of it was supposed to be happening. The parcel is zoned residential. The City of Santa Clarita has had an open zoning-violation case on the property, Case CE-26-1754, since at least September. The Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector, which issues business licenses for Santa Clarita, confirmed in writing on September 22 that the address is “residential” and that the County “doesn’t license home-based businesses.” No liquor license has ever been issued to the address. And that is the point this article turns on: a wedding venue with a bar on a residential lot in Sand Canyon is not unlicensed because someone forgot to apply. It is unlicensable. There is no permit the operator could have obtained that would have made Sunday legal.

“Closed” to the public, open for business

Good Shepherd Media first put the City on written notice about this property on August 25. On September 16, City Manager Ken Striplin wrote back that code enforcement staff were “actively working with the property owners to address the outstanding issues and bring the properties into compliance.” What happened next was not compliance. It was concealment.

Roughly three weeks ago, the venue’s Yelp listing was updated to read “Yelpers report this location has closed.” MapQuest now lists it as “Permanently closed.” As of October 18, the venue’s own website, oasisranchhouse.com, displays two words: “COMING SOON.” But the Internet Archive remembers what that site said for three years. In December 2023 it advertised “a 20-person bar with surround sound speakers and a fire pit” and “a raised platform in the backyard, perfect for that DJ or wedding band.” In December 2024: “WEDDINGS – EVENTS – BABY SHOWERS – ENGAGEMENTS – FILMING … We can accommodate up to 250 guests … call David at 818-427-3131.” In July 2026 the capacity quietly dropped to 150. And while the public-facing pages went dark, the booking platforms never did: on the day of the wedding, the Giggster listing (“Backyard Oasis in Canyon Country,” host “David D.,” five-hour minimum, 200 guests) and the VenueReport listing (200 seated, 300 standing, “20 person bar,” “Licensed Server Is Required,” curfew 10 p.m.) were both live and taking inquiries. Breezit lists the venue “from $6,351.”

An operator who tells Yelp he is closed, tells Giggster he is open, and hosts 200 people on a Sunday knows exactly what he is doing. In the law, that knowledge has a name: it is the difference between a mistake and fraud.

That record matters to every person described below, because California law treats a defendant who knew very differently from one who did not. Knowledge is what opens the door to fraud damages, to punitive damages, and to the “willful” element in the criminal statutes. The operator built that record himself.

If you booked your wedding there

You paid, by the venue’s own listings, somewhere between several thousand and tens of thousands of dollars for a date on a property that could not lawfully host you. Perhaps your event went forward and you now learn it was illegal; perhaps you have a deposit down on a future date; perhaps your day was cut short by a deputy at the gate. In each case the contract you signed had an unlawful object, and California does not make you eat that loss.

A practical note: send the CLRA demand letter now. It costs a stamp, starts a 30-day clock, and if the operator does not refund you, it unlocks attorney’s fees, which is what makes a consumer lawyer take the case.

If you were hit by a driver leaving the venue

This is where honesty matters more than outrage, so read carefully. California has one of the strongest “dram shop” immunities in the country. Civil Code § 1714(c) and Business & Professions Code § 25602(c) say that serving alcohol is not the legal cause of a drunk driver’s crash; the drinking is. If the driver who hit you was 21 or older, you generally cannot sue the venue for pouring the drinks, licensed or not. You sue the driver and the driver’s insurer. The venue’s illegality still helps you: it is evidence for a police report, and every official record of the event supports your claim against the driver.

But there is one door the Legislature left open, and an unlicensed venue bar walks straight through it. Business & Professions Code § 25602.1 allows a lawsuit against a licensee or any person who sells alcohol and is required to be licensed who serves an obviously intoxicated minor (under 21) who then injures someone. The California Supreme Court held in Ennabe v. Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697 that a house-party host who charged money and furnished alcohol was a “person who sells” under that statute and could be sued. A venue that bundles a “20 person bar” into a paid booking is exactly that person.

If you are a neighbor

If guests parked on your lawn, blocked your driveway, kept you up, or left trash and traffic in a fire-evacuation corridor, you do not need the City’s permission to act. California lets a private citizen sue to stop a public nuisance when it hurts her more than the general public, and parking on your grass is a textbook trespass.

What about the City of Santa Clarita?

Residents have asked whether they can sue the City for letting this continue after it was told, in writing, repeatedly, by this publication and others. The record of notice is not in dispute: Good Shepherd Media’s August 25 complaint, read receipts from the Mayor and three councilmembers in September, the City Manager’s September 16 letter, the City Clerk’s October 5 confirmation of three open cases, and a wedding on October 18. The City knew.

Here is the straight answer. California’s Government Claims Act makes a damages lawsuit against a city for failing to enforce its own laws very difficult. Government Code § 818.2 says a public entity is not liable for “failure to enforce any law,” § 821 says the same for its employees, and § 820.2 immunizes discretionary decisions. Courts apply these broadly (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112). Anyone who tells you a damages suit against the City for not citing this venue is a sure thing is selling something.

That does not mean the City is untouchable. Three things are real:

The laws the venue is breaking

Based on the venue’s own advertising, the County’s written confirmation that no license exists, the City’s open zoning case, and the October 18 video, these are the statutes and ordinances in play. None has been adjudicated; all are what a prosecutor or a plaintiff’s lawyer would look at first.

What to do today

Couples: gather your contract, every payment record, every text and email with “David” or the venue, and screenshots of the listings you relied on. Send the CLRA demand letter. Ask the operator in writing whether he disclosed to you that the property was under a City zoning case; his answer, or his silence, is evidence.

Crash victims: get the collision report and the LASD complaint number from the event date. Ask the investigating officer to note where the driver had been. If the driver was under 21, see a personal-injury attorney this week about § 25602.1.

Neighbors: photograph vehicles on your property with plates and time visible, call LASD at (661) 255-1121 every event so the dispatch record builds, file a Community Preservation complaint citing Case CE-26-1754, and file the ABC complaint. Keep a log. Three dispatch records and a video are a nuisance case.

Everyone: file the Government Claim. Six months runs faster than you think.

Good Shepherd Media has asked the City of Santa Clarita, in writing, whether the operator told the City it had closed, whether any Notice of Violation has issued in Case CE-26-1754, and whether the City intends to seek an injunction. The City’s answers, or its silence, will be published. The venue operator has not responded to requests for comment.

This article is journalism, not legal advice. It describes California statutes and published court decisions as they stood on the date of publication. Whether any claim succeeds depends on facts specific to you, and several of the deadlines above are short and unforgiving. Talk to a California-licensed attorney before you rely on anything here. Statutes cited are available at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and ecode360.com/SA4627. Sources for the facts reported: City of Santa Clarita responses to Public Records Requests #11078335, #11078345 and #11111772; Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector correspondence of September 11 and 22, 2026; Internet Archive captures of oasisranchhouse.com dated December 14, 2023, December 16, 2024 and July 26, 2026; live listings on Giggster, VenueReport, Breezit, Yelp and MapQuest captured October 18, 2026; LASD complaint SCT 26291-0156; resident video. If you were affected by this venue and want to share documents, reach the reporter at the address below.

Kent Sommer is an adjunct professor and teaches Legal Analysis Workshop Chapman University Fowler School of Law in 2012. chapman.edu

Psalm 91:3 states, “Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence“

Kent Merrill Sommer # 262832 – This guy has been in practice for 17 years plus has a AVVO 6.6 rating out of 10 and has no firm that we can find other than LA Assessors Office. In our opinion he Does Not Hold Real Weight, He works for the Government where stupidity is rampant and diligence is not necessary.

It is our opinion, that Kent Sommer supports liars helps deviants manipulate the system. His clients have feelings towards harsh language, and lie about the content of speech. Kent Sommer is1st Amendment incompetant! in our opinion Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) inflammatory speech or radical political advocacy is protected Schenck v. United States | 249 U.S. 47 (1919) and Cohen v. California | 403 U.S. 15 (1971) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision protecting the public display of offensive or provocative language under the First Amendment

Does Attorney Kent Merrill Sommer Need a Good SLAPP-BACK?

ANTI SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), Well its coming 

Kent Merrill Sommer will be getting a SLAPP-BACK

The city hiring a second lawyer tells you the matter got more expensive and riskier to handle with one person Lauren Elizabeth Sible may not be as good at 1st amendment law as her slow ass thought. look at Sible’s eyes at best guess an IQ of 100, Dopey and slow looking to us… but… then again look at Kent he looks constipated and painfully trying to smile! Not much going on in their minds, just average losers not matched for an IQ of 168. Not even close!

The County’s restraining order case (26*******63), where Lauren Sible has now been joined by Kent Sommers. We forced it: a self-represented litigant who files cited, procedurally correct papers can’t be handled on autopilot.

• A contested case. You filed a full response, a non-stipulation, and a peremptory challenge, so this is no longer a ten-minute uncontested order.
• A production order. The judge ordered the County to turn over the call recordings, incident reports, and video five days before the next hearing. Someone has to review that material, and it may not match the petition.
• An anti-SLAPP motion coming. If you win it, the County pays fees, and either side can appeal immediately. County Counsel usually brings in a more senior or motion-experienced deputy when that’s on the table.
• A weak spot of its own making. The Assessor reversed all 19 reassessments, and staff named in the petition kept corresponding with you cordially afterward. That undercuts any claim of an ongoing threat, and they need someone to work out how to handle it.

A second attorney most likely means the case got harder than they planned for, and your filings are what made it harder. The addition of a second attorney means the city is taking the volume and intensity of your legal filings seriously and is scaling up its administrative capacity to match your output.

• Automatic Stay: An Anti-SLAPP motion automatically freezes the standard discovery process. Navigating how a subpoena interacts with an Anti-SLAPP freeze requires highly specific statutory knowledge.
• Fee-Shifting Risk: If you win an Anti-SLAPP motion, the city could be forced to pay your legal fees. Because public funds are at stake, municipal guidelines often mandate bringing in a senior or specialized attorney to oversee the defense and mitigate financial risk.
• The anti-SLAPP motion raised the stakes. A 425.16 motion carries mandatory fee-shifting and an automatic right of appeal. A routine petition became a matter with real cost exposure for the city, and that justifies more hours and a second set of eyes.
• Protected Speech – The core of this battle rests on a complex area of Constitutional law. While name-calling and racial slurs are offensive, they are protected under the First Amendment

Look at this man’s shit home. Dilapidated, Unkept balls everywhere except where they should be, between ones legs! His lawn is half dead, half weeds and dirt!

This guy has an annual salary of $201,505 breaks down to $96.88 per hour before taxes!

A. Anti-SLAPP framework (§ 425.16)

B. What a “credible threat” is — and isn’t

C. Rude, vulgar, insulting speech to public employees is protected

D. Publishing public employees’ information · assembly

E. Retaliation by government · scope of any order · the Court’s power

F. Evidence rules (why the County’s proof fails)

Statutes doing the heavy lifting :

CCP § 527.8 (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(8), (c), (f), (k), (p), (q) · CCP § 425.16 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) · Civ. Code § 47(b) · Evid. Code §§ 352, 412, 1101(a) · Penal Code §§ 653.2, 653m · CCP § 170.6 · CCP § 2015.5.

Does Attorney Lauren Elizabeth Sible Need a Good SLAPP BACK?

This is about a public grievance (the official’s conduct and the recording/phone-seizure incident and all of their failures at solving the Tax mistake they made even after they received all the asked for, they still continue to harm the elderly an 86 year old wheelchair bound man and his 79 year old wife)

We encourage all communication to remain peaceful, lawful, and in the finest tradition of First Amendment civic engagement. Protected political speech under Snyder v. Phelps and Connick v. Myers,Save this page. We will be working with our partners & team members gathering supporters. sometimes this can take months. please sign up so we know we can count on your support. Contact our news publishing company https://goodshepherdmedia.net/peaceful-assembly-form/

YOUR IP ADDRESS IS: 58.68.203.122

all data on this site was legally obtained and is publicly reposted data this site falls under the 1st amendment and the freedom of press will continue!

Peaceful Assembly

WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS US CITIZENS TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE QUIETLY AND NOT TRESPASS NOT BLOCK ACCESS TO ANY ROAD OR PATHWAY AND HAND OUT LEAFLETS OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION THAT CONTAINS NEWS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR TRUTHFUL ACTIONS, JUST LIKE FOX NEWS 11 AND THE BIDEN LAPTOP. BUT STILL PLEASE DONT BOTHER ANYONE HERE AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE. 1st Amendment Right of the US Constitution for Peaceful Public Assembly 

PEACEFUL PROTEST INVOLVES BEING KIND HOLDING YOUR SIGN OR LEAFLETS AND GETTING YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. YOU CANNOT BLOCK SIDEWALK, SHE IS NOT BELOW. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BLOCK OTHERS MOVEMENT. SO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE’S WAY OF MOVEMENT AND BE CALM HOLD YOUR SIGN AND KEEP UP YOUR DOINGS !

  THIS SITE IS NOT AFFILITATED WITH ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT AIDING THE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC MATTERS OF ADDRESS IN A PEACEFUL PUBLIC MANNER TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE OF THE PEOPLE IN A PASSIVE PEACEFUL MANNER THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO BE AND FEEL SAFE AND STILL BE HEARD.

 Registered Agent Locked Family’s Mail, Then Cut Service

RegisteredAgentsInc.com Reviews Network Locks Family’s Mail, Then Cuts Service  Oct 9, 2026

delawareregisteredagent.com Review
wyomingagents.com Review

WE HAVE YOU RECORDED LYING, 2 OPPOSING ANSWERS MANY VERSIONS OF FAILURE OF FUDCIARY DUTIES

DO NOT GO TO RegisteredAgentsInc.com delawareregisteredagent.com OR wyomingagents.com

NEVER PUT YOUR TRUST IN A COMPANY THAT HAS SUCH BAD REVIEWS ON MORE THAN ONE REVIEW SITE AND NEVER EVER TRUST A COMPANY WHO GOT AN ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT THEM TO STAY AWAY, THAT MEANS THEY PISSED SOMEONE OFF THAT MUCH WITH THEIR SERVICE THAT I CAME TO THIS ARTICLE AND HUNDREDS OF REVIEWS FROM MANY OTHER UNSATISFIED CLIENTS 

A Wyoming-based firm that serves as the legal mailbox for hundreds of thousands of companies charged an elderly couple’s businesses to see their own government mail, then terminated all 14 accounts a week after the family complained.

By Good Shepherd Media · October 2026

“Any future mail we receive after the termination date will be locked and subject to a $50 access fee per item.”

When a company hires a registered agent, it is hiring the one party the law trusts to receive its lawsuits, tax notices, and state filings. If that agent fails, a business can lose a case it never knew existed.

For Teresa , 79, and Fred , 86, that trust broke down this fall. The couple’s family businesses, 14 limited liability companies holding real estate and family enterprises, learned that government mail addressed to them had been sitting in an account they had closed more than a year earlier. It was locked behind fees.

Two brands, one mothership

Since at least October 2024, the family had used Wyoming Registered Agent Services LLC, which operates wyomingagents.com. By spring 2025, unhappy with the service, they planned to switch to delawareregisteredagent.com, run by A Registered Agent, Inc. of Dover, Delaware.

First, they called to make sure the two were not the same company. On a call the company announced was being recorded, Philip asked, “You guys are not Delaware registered agents, right?” A representative answered, “No, just Wyoming.” Teresa Zullo was present for the call.

The family moved all 14 companies to the Delaware brand on or about May 26, 2025.

A later recorded call told a different story. A representative said the brands are “owned by the same corporation, so to speak,” and that their “mothership company” is Registered Agents Inc. of Sheridan, Wyoming (registeredagentsinc.com). The termination notice the family later received came from that company’s own address, highvalue@registeredagentsinc.com.

The public record points the same way. The two brands publish nearly identical terms of service. Both choose Washington State law and federal court in Spokane. Both websites run analytics through corporatetools.com; Corporate Tools LLC is owned by Registered Agents Inc. The Delaware brand’s own website describes a local company that “began as a one-person operation out of a private home in Delaware” and promises clients “your information stays with us.”

Mail in the wrong mailbox

This September, the Los Angeles County Assessor told the family it had sent mail that never appeared in their paid Delaware account. Philip Zullo, who manages the companies, tried logging into the old Wyoming account. His login still worked more than a year later.

Inside were 83 documents for the family’s companies, dated from December 4, 2025 to September 10, 2026, including a state notice and a high-priority item. All were locked. On September 10, an email from Registered Agents Inc. required $622.50 to unlock them; the invoice was billed to one of the family’s companies but covered every entity in the account. Further items carried per-document fees.

On September 30, Zullo wrote to the company that “Wyoming is hiding mail for companies no longer paid for” while the family’s paid accounts were with the Delaware brand. The company acknowledged the issue the next day.

Terminated in a single afternoon

On October 8, Registered Agents Inc. sent a “formal notice” that it would end “all services for the companies currently in your account, effective October 8, 2026.” The email said “our business goals and practices are not aligned.” It said mail received afterward “will be locked and subject to a $50 access fee per item.”

Within minutes, the Delaware brand sent 14 emails, one per company, stating that services had been “updated as requested.” The family says it made no such request. Zullo replied that night: “What are you talking about?”

The company’s notice promised refunds of recent payments and told the family to file new registered agents with each state. Under Wyoming and Delaware law, a company that loses its agent and does not replace it in time can be dissolved or canceled.

A duty with no fiduciary?

Registered agents act on a company’s behalf, and some courts treat that role as one of trust. In 2017, a federal appeals court revived a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against a registered agent whose handling of legal papers left a company facing a $9.7 million default judgment (International Environmental Management v. United Corporate Services, 8th Cir.).

The terms used by both brands say the opposite. They state that their services create no fiduciary duty, cap liability at one year of fees, and give the company alone the right to force disputes into private arbitration. They also say that on termination the company is released from any duty to notify clients of lawsuits or mail, even if its address remains on state records.

California law adds protections for older residents. The state’s Elder Abuse Act defines financial abuse to include depriving an elder of a property right, including through an agreement, when the business knew or should have known its conduct was likely to be harmful (Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30). Whether that law reaches mail held for the couple’s companies is a question for the courts.

A firm under scrutiny before

Registered Agents Inc., founded in 2008, operates from 30 N. Gould St. in Sheridan, Wyoming. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported in March 2025 that more than 266,000 companies were incorporated using that address between 2019 and 2024. Wired reported in 2024 that the firm used fictitious names on filings, which the firm called “patently wrong.” In May 2024, Wyoming’s Secretary of State dissolved three companies registered through the firm that the FBI linked to North Korean fraud.

A company spokesperson told ICIJ that registered agents “provide an avenue for legal notices to be served” and that the firm takes “appropriate steps to terminate service as a commercial registered agent when necessary or required.”

What the family wants

The Zullos have sent the companies a certified-mail Notice of Dispute, which the companies’ terms require before any suit. They are asking for release of all mail in both accounts without charge, a refund of the unlock fees, time to move their companies without a lapse, and a written account of how the brands are related.

“All my accounts are with Delaware and mail is paid for,” Zullo wrote to the company in September. “But Wyoming is hiding mail.”

Good Shepherd Media sent written questions to Registered Agents Inc., A Registered Agent, Inc., and Wyoming Registered Agent Services LLC on October ___, 2026. [Insert their response here, or: The companies did not respond by publication time.]

What happens next

The termination leaves the family a short window. Wyoming law requires an agent to give a company 30 days’ notice before filing its resignation with the state. After that, a company that does not name a new agent can be administratively dissolved. In Delaware, an LLC that fails to replace a resigning agent within 30 days has its certificate of formation canceled.

The family is appointing new agents for all 14 companies and asking the government agencies that write to them to update their records. Mail already sitting in the two old accounts is a separate fight. The companies’ terms say paper originals are destroyed 30 days after they are scanned.

The companies’ terms require the Zullos to wait 60 days after their Notice of Dispute before filing suit. If the dispute is not resolved, the family plans to file in Los Angeles County small claims court. The terms say disputes belong in Spokane, Washington, or in private arbitration, so the companies may challenge where the case is heard.

For Teresa Zullo, the lesson is simple. “We asked them directly if they were the same company,” she said. “They said no.” [Confirm this quote with Teresa, or delete it.]

The companies answer for hundreds of thousands of businesses whose owners may never check an old login. The Zullos found their mail only because a county office told them to look.

If you use a registered agent

• Log into every account you have ever opened with a registered agent, including old ones.
• Ask your agent in writing which company owns it, and which address the state lists for you.
• Check your state business record once a year to confirm your agent and address.
• Keep a second mailing address with your county assessor and tax agencies.

for any customer needing to leave them a review – Customer review (post from your own account)

Post one review per platform, under your own name, on Google, Yelp, Trustpilot, and the BBB for each brand. Stick to what happened to you and what the documents show.

Rating: 1 star

Title: Paid for mail in one portal, found it locked in another, then they dropped all 14 of our companies

Full review (Google, Trustpilot, BBB):

We managed 14 family LLCs through delawareregisteredagent.com (A Registered Agent, Inc.). Before switching from wyomingagents.com, I called to ask whether the two companies were related. On a recorded line, the rep told me “No, just Wyoming.” A later rep told me they are “owned by the same corporation” and their “mothership” is Registered Agents Inc.

This September, our county assessor told us it had mailed items that never showed up in our paid Delaware account. I logged into our old Wyoming account, and the login still worked more than a year later. Inside were 83 documents for our companies, going back to December 2025, all locked. They charged us $622.50 to unlock them, plus per-item fees.

I reported in writing that one portal was holding mail we had paid for in the other. They acknowledged it. A week later, on October 8, they terminated every company in our account the same day. Minutes later we got 14 emails saying our services were cancelled “as requested.” We never requested anything. Any mail they get for us now is locked at $50 an item.

A registered agent’s job is to make sure you get your legal and government mail. Ours ended up in the wrong account behind a paywall, and when we complained, we were cut off with almost no notice. Our owners are 79 and 86.

If you use any of these brands, log into every account you have ever opened with them, including old ones, and check your state business records. I would not trust them with a company I cared about.

Short version (Yelp, review sites with limits):

They told us on a recorded call that wyomingagents.com and delawareregisteredagent.com were not related. They are both owned by Registered Agents Inc. We paid for mail through the Delaware brand, but government mail for our 14 companies sat locked in our old Wyoming account until we paid $622.50 to see it. A week after we reported the problem, they terminated all our companies in one afternoon and emailed that it was “as requested.” It wasn’t. Avoid.

Where to post:

• Google Business profile for A Registered Agent, Inc., 8 The Green, Dover, DE (the company’s About Us page links its Google reviews)
• Google Business profile for Wyoming Registered Agent Services LLC, Sheridan, WY
• Google Business profile for Registered Agents Inc., Sheridan, WY
• BBB: file a complaint (not just a review) against each brand; companies must respond to complaints
• Trustpilot and Yelp: “A Registered Agent” (Dover) listing

Rules that keep a review safe: post only under your own name; do not have friends or family post reviews of things they did not experience. Teresa may post her own review in her own words, since she was on the calls. Do not call them “criminals” or “thieves”; stating what happened, with numbers and quotes, is more persuasive and protected as truthful. Ask Mr. Simran whether to post before or after the 60-day notice period, since the company may quote your review in arbitration or court.

Timeline (sidebar)

The dispute ran 17 months from the recorded denial to termination.

$1,736 Up in Vapor: Our Air Conditioner Died 24 Hours After “Universal Heating & Air” Charged Us for a Leak Repair — Then They Tried to Sell Us a New Unit

A quoted price that grew $58.71 after the click. An invoice “due” the day before it was sent. Two different company names on the same license. And eight pounds of refrigerant pumped into a system that couldn’t hold it. Here is the paper trail.

OUR OPINION IS STAY FAR AWAY FROM United Heating & Air 2260 Maravilla Dr Los Angeles CA 90068

By Good Shepherd Media Staff  |  West Hollywood, California

EDITOR’S DISCLOSURE: This is a first-party consumer account. The transaction described below was paid for by this publication’s own household, and every claim in this article is drawn from documents in our possession — the company’s own invoice, its own text messages, and its own client portal — reproduced and quoted with precision. Characterizations of the company’s motives are the opinion of this publication, formed from the documented facts stated herein. We invite Universal Heating & Air to respond in writing; any response will be published in full.

The Job: Paid in Full, Failed in Full — in Under a Day

On Wednesday, July 29, 2026, Universal Heating & Air — operating from 2260 Maravilla Dr, Los Angeles, phone (323) 763-5777, advertising California contractor license #1069748 — was paid $1,736.21 for a service call in West Hollywood. Their own invoice (#3724) itemizes the work:

• “Leak repair 1 — Find a leak and repair over the valve for the compress[or]” — $300.00
• “Freon R-410A Per Paund” [their spelling, not ours] — 8 pounds at $125.00/lb — $1,000.00
• “System check and run 1” — $175.00
• “Maintenance” — $125.00

Read that list again. They billed for finding a leak. They billed for repairing a leak. They billed for checking the system. They billed for maintenance. And then they billed one thousand dollars to pump eight pounds of R-410A refrigerant into the system they had just certified, by their own line items, as found, fixed, checked, and maintained.

Within twenty-four hours, the system was stone dead. All eight pounds of refrigerant — the entire $1,000 charge — had escaped. The technicians returned and announced there was, in their words, a “huge hole in the coil.”

And then came the part every homeowner in Los Angeles should memorize: they immediately tried to sell us a brand-new air conditioner.

Why This Cannot Be Explained as an Honest Mistake

Here is the industry standard, and it is not obscure. A legitimate leak repair on a refrigeration system includes a leak search and a verification test before refrigerant goes back in. Federal EPA regulations governing refrigerant work (40 C.F.R. § 82.157) require that a repair verification test “be performed after the conclusion of the repair work and before any additional refrigerant is added to the appliance.” Standard trade practice is to pressurize the system — typically with dry nitrogen — and hold pressure to confirm it is tight. A standing pressure test held for even twenty minutes exposes a significant leak every single time.

A hole in a coil large enough to dump eight pounds of refrigerant in under a day is not a pinhole. It is not subtle. It is the kind of gross, catastrophic defect that no competent pressure test — indeed, no competent technician paying attention to his own gauges — could possibly miss.

Which leaves exactly two possibilities, and the reader may choose whichever is more charitable:

1. The leak search, leak repair, system check, and pressure verification that were billed and paid for were never actually performed — meaning the customer paid $600 in labor line items for work that did not happen; or
2. The work was performed, the catastrophic leak was detectable, and the company pumped $1,000 of refrigerant into a system it knew or should have known could not hold it — refrigerant that was always going to vent into the atmosphere within hours — perfectly teeing up the next morning’s sales pitch for a replacement unit.

In this publication’s opinion, that second scenario has a name in the HVAC trade: it is the classic refrigerant-dumping upsell. Charge big money to gas up a dying system, let physics do its work overnight, then return in the morning wearing a sad face and carrying a quote for a new condenser. The refrigerant charge isn’t a repair — it’s bait for the real sale.

The $58.71 That Appeared After the Click

The failed repair is only half the story. Examine how this company quotes a price — because we kept the receipts, the texts, and the screenshots.

On Wednesday afternoon, Universal Heating & Air sent a text message stating, verbatim: “Your invoice total is $1,677.50, and needs to be paid by Tue Jul 28, 2026.” That figure is precise: it is the $1,600.00 subtotal plus $77.50 in tax. That was the total. That was the representation.

Click the payment link in that same text, however, and the invoice waiting at the other end demands $1,736.21. Between the quoted total and the charged total, a $58.71 “Service Fee” materialized out of thin air — a fee mentioned nowhere in the quote, agreed to by no one, and tacked on at the moment of payment. Quote one number, charge a higher one, and pocket the difference: whatever the company wishes to call that line item, the practice of quoting $1,677.50 and collecting $1,736.21 speaks for itself.

An Invoice Due Before It Existed, and a Company With Two Names

The sloppiness — or something worse — does not end there. The company’s own client portal shows Invoice #3724 was sent July 29, 2026, with a due date of July 28, 2026. The bill was past due the moment it was born. Manufactured urgency, or mere incompetence? Either answer should worry you.

Stranger still: the text messages, the branding, and the receipt all say “Universal Heating & Air.” The formal invoice on the payment portal is issued in the name of “United Heating & Air” — a different company name — at the same address, the same phone number, and the same license number, #1069748. Consumers are entitled to know exactly which legal entity is taking their money and standing behind the work. Here, the company’s own paperwork can’t keep its story straight.

“Th Office Is Working on Your Refund”

On Friday evening, after the failure and the complaint, the company texted: “Hello th office is working on your refund.” We preserve that message here for two reasons. First, it is a written acknowledgment, from the company itself, that a refund is owed. Second, as of publication, no refund has been received. This article will be updated the day that changes — and every week that it doesn’t.

The Review Record: Read Past the Stars

Prospective customers who search this company on Google will find a wall of glowing reviews. Prospective customers who search the same company on Yelp will find a 1.0-star rating. That is not a difference of opinion; that is a chasm. We encourage every reader to look at both platforms side by side, note the disparity, and draw their own conclusions about which body of reviews reflects the experience described — and documented — in this article.

The Bottom Line for Santa Clarita and Los Angeles Homeowners

Our documented experience with Universal Heating & Air: a $1,736.21 charge; a “leak repair” that did not survive a single day; $1,000 of refrigerant vented into the sky; a same-week sales pitch for a new unit; a price that grew $58.71 between the quote and the click; an invoice due before it was sent; two company names on one license; and a promised refund that has not arrived.

In this publication’s opinion, no homeowner should let this company near their equipment or their credit card until every question raised by its own paperwork is answered. If you hire any HVAC contractor for a leak repair, demand — in writing, before payment — the leak location found, the repair method used, and the standing pressure test results. A contractor who performed the work will hand them over proudly. A contractor who didn’t will get very quiet.

Good Shepherd Media stands behind every factual statement in this article, each of which is supported by documents in our possession, including Invoice #3724, the company’s SMS communications, and screenshots of the company’s client payment portal. Statements of opinion are identified as such and reflect this publication’s honest assessment of the documented facts. Universal Heating & Air (a/k/a United Heating & Air), and any principal thereof, is invited to submit a written response for unedited publication: contact Good Shepherd Media.

Our opinion matters like yours does

In the crowded courtroom, the attorney never argued with me directly. He didn’t need to. Instead, he leaned back in his chair with a smug smile, letting out the occasional snicker whenever I spoke, as though ridicule were a substitute for reason.

The judge barely seemed to follow what was happening, allowing confusion to drift through the proceedings without ever bringing clarity. It felt less like a search for the truth and more like a performance where appearances mattered more than facts.

The attorney seemed perfectly comfortable while the room was watching. Every smirk, every quiet laugh, every dismissive glance was carefully timed for an audience.

But outside the courtroom, the performance disappeared.

When asked directly about his behavior, he denied everything.

“I never laughed.”

“I never snickered.”

“It didn’t happen.”

The confidence that had filled the courtroom dissolved into evasions and excuses. Without spectators, there was no swagger—only someone retreating behind careful words and convenient denials, hoping that if he repeated them often enough, they would become believable.

It became clear that his confidence depended on the room, not on conviction. In public, he projected certainty. In private, he hid behind distance and avoidance rather than standing by his conduct.

Watching that contrast taught me something. Genuine confidence doesn’t need an audience. Integrity doesn’t disappear when the courtroom empties. A person’s character is revealed not by how boldly they perform in front of others, but by whether they stand behind their actions when no one is left to applaud.

Laughing at those defending themselves is in itself a coward move, but we don’t expect much from fat men. Treating others with disrespect in a court especially those that are Pro Se seems to be the way many loser lawyers feel.

This is a matter of public concern to disrespect others and look down upon them when you only went a school in the ghettos of Downtown LA. you are nothing more than low grade shit!

for being a lawyer for 20 years he is poor.

peaceful public assembly is a great tool to allow you to express you and your groups feelings about the actions, behaviors, business they commence, etc…. 

20742 Dumont St

Woodland Hills

now hear us out why a man who studies at Loyola will have the propensity to suck in more ways than you may understand.
Poor Quality School Environments produce lack luster results Poor Quality School Environments produce lack luster results!

read this major study below conducted by independent experts!             “_” 

BTW THEY SENT THIS DBAG AFTER KEIKO COULD NOT PERFORM FOR THE ANTI SLAP TASK AS SHE IS CLUELESS IN OUR HONEST OPINION

When an Insurance Lawyer Prosecutes a Free Press Case: A Look at Keiko Kojima’s Handling of City of Santa Clarita v. Zullo

Investigative Opinion — Municipal Accountability

When an Insurance Lawyer Prosecutes a Free Press Case

A Look at Keiko Kojima’s Handling of City of Santa Clarita v. Zullo

A Résumé Built for Insurance Disputes, Not Constitutional Ones

According to her own firm’s biography, Keiko J. Kojima, an attorney at Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, built her career on insurance coverage disputes, bad faith liability litigation, and — by her firm’s own description — ERISA and employee benefits work representing insurers in disability and life insurance cases. Her listed representative matters are almost entirely federal ERISA and insurance-coverage rulings: cases about plan benefit denials, accidental death and dismemberment claims, and long-term disability terminations.

Nowhere in that record is there a workplace violence restraining order petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8. Nowhere is there an anti-SLAPP motion under section 425.16. Nowhere is there a First Amendment retaliation case, a Counterman v. Colorado true-threats analysis, or a dispute over a publisher’s newsgathering activity.

And yet Kojima, along with colleague Alicia McMaster, is representing the City of Santa Clarita in exactly that kind of case — a workplace violence restraining order petition against a local publisher and property manager whose underlying conduct, by his own account, consisted of phone calls to city officials about a Proposition 218 rate dispute, a sewer gas hazard, a horse trail safety issue, and alleged financial irregularities in a public infrastructure project. This is not an insurance coverage dispute. It is a case that sits squarely on the fault line between civil petitioning rights, press freedom, and the government’s power to use civil process against its critics — terrain her professional background does not appear to have prepared her for.

That mismatch matters. And in this case, it shows.

The Transcript Problem

At the center of the City’s opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion is a transcript of a May 8, 2026 phone call. According to the Reply brief filed in this matter, the excerpt submitted to the court begins mid-sentence — severed from the surrounding conversation in a way that, the brief argues, strips out the context establishing the call as civic petitioning rather than anything resembling a threat.

California’s Rules of Professional Conduct are not vague on this point. Rule 3.3 requires candor toward the tribunal; Rule 4.1 requires truthfulness in statements to others. A selectively excerpted transcript, submitted to a court as evidence of dangerous conduct, without the context that would change its apparent meaning, is not a neutral evidentiary choice. It is, at minimum, a serious question about whether the presentation of evidence in this case was designed to inform the court — or to produce a particular outcome regardless of what the full record shows.

A Missed Call That Was Pleaded as Something It Wasn’t

The City’s case also leans on Exhibit 4 — a softphone screenshot purporting to document contact from the respondent. Examined closely, the exhibit shows a missed call from a number that is not the respondent’s own phone number, on a date that was never pleaded in the underlying petition, under a “Missed” call tab, with a downward-left arrow indicating the call never connected in the first place.

A call that never connected, from a number that isn’t the respondent’s, on a date not alleged in the petition, is not evidence of threatening conduct. It is, at best, imprecise lawyering. At worst, it’s an attempt to manufacture the appearance of contact where none of the pleaded facts support it.

Law as a Tool for Outcomes, Not Truth

Review of Keiko Kojima

There is a difference between advocating zealously for a client and using the machinery of civil process — a restraining order petition, backed by the coercive power of a city government — to achieve an outcome regardless of whether the underlying facts support it. The former is the ordinary, legitimate work of a litigator. The latter is what happens when a lawyer treats the courtroom as a venue for winning rather than a venue for truth-finding.

Based on the record in this case — the truncated transcript, the mismatched exhibit, the reliance on a restraining order petition against a publisher whose conduct consisted of calls to government officials about matters of public concern — it is fair to ask which of those two things has been happening in City of Santa Clarita v. Zullo.

Government attorneys wield significant power when they act on behalf of a municipality against an individual critic. That power comes with a corresponding obligation: to present the court with a complete and accurate record, not the most convenient one. The anti-SLAPP motion pending in this case will test whether that obligation was met. Our investigative team has attempted to reach out to the abusers at Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP but so far we only have reached voicemails no answering service or secretary, this means most likely working from home and not an office with a receptionist or they just suck and never answer either way find another firm is our strong opinion! Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP also has team members that were told on recorded voicemail (which we to recorded) that you are abusing and harassing the elderly by repeatedly sending and/or serving documents to the elderly whom have nothing to do with their case. They were told that the person they are looking for lives in another county and to figure it out. When you have knowledge forthright since those recordings left to several of the people involved and the case rebuttals all have a business PO box you are a little slow and stupid. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP APPEARS TO BE GREAT AT ABUSING THE ELDERLY’S PEACE OR JUST TOO STUPID TO KNOW BETTER.

Personally our opinion save your money and hire an attorney who’s specialty is the issue at hand.

OUR OPINION IS IF YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY IN AN ATTEMPT
TO HARM OTHERS OR YOUR OWN POCKETS?

CONTACT THE MORON BELOW FOR HER OUT OF SCOPE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE US CONSTITUTION AND YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS DUE TO HER INCOMPETENCE

Keiko J. Kojima
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street
40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2942

email Keiko kkojima@bwslaw.com
D: +1 213.236.2842
T: +1 213.236.0600

Santa Clarita Is Using Your Tax Dollars to Silence a Reporter

City of Santa Clarita Uses Public Funds to Sue Its Own Local Journalist

Philip Zullo is a journalistic investigative reporter and publisher of Good Shepherd Media who was attacked by the City of Santa Clarita and founder of Urban Group Capital a separate real-estate management and development firm. He is representing himself pro per in Case No.  This piece reflects his ongoing coverage of Santa Clarita municipal government accountability.

Brian Inman Hamblet – The Mask of Confidence

“Charged $35,000+ to mishandle a case his own client’s family understood better than he did”

Google / Yelp Review

Jon Atabek — Atabek & Co. ★☆☆☆☆

“Charged $35,000+ to mishandle a case his own client’s family understood better than he did”

My elderly parents were referred to Jon Atabek after their original attorney, John Fowler, handed off the case. Jon received a full briefing from Fowler and from my mother personally. The facts were clear: my parents had no meaningful involvement in the underlying dispute, the case appeared to have a serious jurisdictional defect, and the claims against them were meritless on their face. Jon agreed. He estimated the matter would cost no more than $10,000.

That estimate became $35,000 — and counting.

Here is what actually happened:

He let a jurisdictionally defective court rule on the Anti-SLAPP. When jurisdiction is challenged, that question must be resolved first. It is a foundational principle of civil procedure. Jon allowed the Orange County judge to rule on the Anti-SLAPP motion while a live jurisdictional challenge remained unresolved. Any resulting order from a court without jurisdiction is void. He either didn’t know this or didn’t act on it.

The Anti-SLAPP was never completed after transfer. The case was eventually transferred to Los Angeles County — a move that was identified and pushed for not by Jon, but by the client’s son. Once in LA, where the original filer knew he couldn’t rely on his Orange County connections, he dropped the case. Jon’s contribution to that outcome was collecting fees. He never re-pursued the Anti-SLAPP in the transferee court. He then sought an additional $9,000.

He was corrected on legal issues by a non-lawyer — on recorded calls. On multiple recorded occasions, the client’s son identified legal avenues and arguments that Jon had not raised. Jon had to go back to his computer to verify. He was wrong. The client’s family was right. This is documented and recorded.

He charged $25,000 for an Anti-SLAPP he had agreed to include, then abandoned it. The family made clear from the beginning that an Anti-SLAPP and a SLAPPback were priorities. Jon agreed. He then billed a separate $25,000 for the Anti-SLAPP motion, let a court without jurisdiction rule on it, transferred the case, and walked away from both the Anti-SLAPP and the SLAPPback suit — which remained a viable cause of action in LA County.

If you are considering retaining Jon Atabek for any matter involving Anti-SLAPP law, jurisdictional questions, or civil harassment defense — look elsewhere. The client’s family ultimately did more to resolve this case through their own jurisdictional analysis than counsel did through $35,000 in billing. That is not a defense attorney. That is a billing department.

HERE IS LAW TO PROVE JON ATABEK SUCKS AS AN ATTORNEY OR LIES OR IS LAZY IN MY OPINION

Legal Analysis: Jurisdictional Priority Over Anti-SLAPP Rulings

Core Principle: Jurisdiction Must Be Resolved First

When a court’s subject matter or personal jurisdiction is properly challenged, that threshold question must be resolved before the court acts on the merits — including ruling on a special motion to strike under CCP § 425.16.

Lack of Jurisdiction Voids Any Order

In Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, the court confirmed that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio — not merely voidable. This means if the Orange County court lacked jurisdiction and ruled on the Anti-SLAPP motion anyway, that ruling carries no legal weight and cannot be used as a final adjudication.

People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653 reinforces this: a court acting without jurisdiction has no power to act at all.

Transfer Doesn’t Moot the Anti-SLAPP — It Follows the Case

Under CCP § 396b, when a case is transferred for improper venue or lack of jurisdiction, all pending motions transfer with it. An Anti-SLAPP motion filed before transfer does not simply expire — it must be heard in the transferee court. Failure to pursue it there is attorney error.

Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 establishes that Anti-SLAPP protections are substantive rights, not procedural conveniences. Allowing a defective jurisdictional ruling to stand without preserving and re-noting the Anti-SLAPP in the transferee court abandons a client’s substantive right.

The SLAPPback Right Also Transferred

Under CCP § 425.18, a SLAPPback cause of action accrues upon a favorable Anti-SLAPP ruling. If the Orange County ruling was jurisdictionally void, the SLAPPback clock properly begins when the Anti-SLAPP is properly adjudicated in the correct forum — here, Los Angeles County. An attorney who fails to file the SLAPPback in the transferee court after transfer has abandoned a separate, cognizable cause of action.

Jurisdictional Defect Was Identifiable from the Record

The most damaging professional responsibility issue here is that the jurisdictional problem was apparent on the face of the pleadings — and was identified not by counsel, but by the client’s son. Under Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, an attorney has an affirmative duty to advise a client of all legal remedies and issues reasonably apparent from the case — including jurisdictional defects. Failure to do so is actionable malpractice.

Fee Escalation Under These Facts

Where an attorney’s own failure to identify a basic jurisdictional issue caused unnecessary proceedings, billings for those proceedings may constitute a fee dispute cognizable before the State Bar and supportable as a basis for fee disgorgement. Under Huskinson & Brown v. Wolf (2004) 32 Cal.4th 453, fees earned through neglect or incompetence are subject to challenge.

Formal State Bar Complaint & Malpractice Analysis

I. Professional Negligence (Legal Malpractice) — Elements Established

Under Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, legal malpractice requires:

1. Attorney-client relationship ✓
2. Negligent act or omission ✓
3. Causation ✓
4. Resulting damages ✓

All four elements are met here. But the facts go beyond simple negligence into a pattern of professional misconduct spanning fee fraud, elder abuse, and abandonment of contracted legal services.

II. Failure to Define and Honor Scope of Representation

The $10,000 Estimate Was a Professional Representation, Not a Guess

When an attorney receives a case through a colleague referral, reviews it with the referring attorney, and then independently reviews it with the client — and states a cost estimate — that estimate constitutes a professional representation upon which the client reasonably relies. It is not puffery. It is not aspirational. It is the product of a licensed professional’s informed assessment.

Under California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5(b), the basis or rate of fees must be communicated in writing to the client. More critically, when the scope of work materially expands, the attorney has an affirmative obligation to:

• Notify the client in writing
• Explain why the scope changed
• Obtain informed consent before incurring additional fees

Jon Atabek went from a $10,000 estimate to $35,000 in billings — a 250% increase — without a legitimate explanation rooted in case developments that were unforeseeable at intake. The jurisdictional defect, the Anti-SLAPP posture, and the SLAPPback potential were all visible from the moment he received the file. None of this was new information that justified tripling the fee.

The Case Was Handed to Him Pre-Analyzed

This is the most damning professional responsibility fact in the record. Jon Atabek did not discover this case cold. He received it from a colleague who had already worked it. He was briefed attorney-to-attorney. He then met with the client — an elderly woman who explained the facts clearly and completely. He had every tool a competent attorney needs to accurately scope this matter before he ever accepted a dollar.

Under Mirabito v. Liccardo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 41, an attorney who accepts a case without adequately investigating its scope, and then charges fees beyond what was reasonably foreseeable at intake, cannot shift the burden of that professional failure onto the client through escalating billing.

III. Elder Financial Abuse — Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30

This is not merely a fee dispute. Under California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30, financial elder abuse occurs when a person takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud.

The client here was an elderly woman. She paid fees for services that were:

• Priced through a professional representation she reasonably relied upon
• Never fully rendered
• Strategically inflated beyond what the case required
• Abandoned mid-engagement without completing contracted work

California courts have held that professionals — including attorneys — can be liable for elder financial abuse when their conduct involves overreaching against a vulnerable adult. Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency (2017) established that financial elder abuse does not require intentional theft — exploitative overcharging with awareness of the client’s vulnerability is sufficient.

An elderly woman, unfamiliar with litigation, relying on an attorney introduced through her family’s trusted network, paying $35,000 for work that was estimated at $10,000 and never completed — this is the paradigm case the elder abuse statute was designed to address.

Enhanced Remedies Available:

Under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.5, a successful elder financial abuse claim entitles the plaintiff to:

• Full restitution of all fees paid
• Attorney’s fees and costs (significant in a pro se or retained context)
• Punitive damages if oppression, fraud, or malice is shown
• Pre-judgment interest

IV. Abandonment of the Anti-SLAPP — A Contracted and Paid Service

Jon Atabek accepted $25,000 specifically for the Anti-SLAPP motion. That payment created a contractual and fiduciary obligation to pursue the Anti-SLAPP to completion — including through venue transfer.

He did not do that.

Under CCP § 425.16(c), a prevailing Anti-SLAPP defendant is entitled to mandatory attorney’s fees from the plaintiff. This means a completed Anti-SLAPP victory would have:

1. Terminated the harassment litigation
2. Shifted attorney’s fees back onto the malicious filer
3. Created the predicate for a SLAPPback suit under CCP § 425.18

Jon Atabek collected $25,000, obtained a ruling from a court of questionable jurisdiction, watched the case transfer to Los Angeles County — and then walked away from both the Anti-SLAPP continuation and the SLAPPback. The client paid for an outcome she never received. The opposing party — a malicious filer who weaponized the courts against elderly people — walked away without consequence.

This is abandonment of representation under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16, combined with breach of fiduciary duty under Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, which holds that an attorney’s fiduciary obligations include completing the work for which they were retained or formally and properly withdrawing.

V. Failure to Identify Jurisdictional Defect — Negligence Per Se

The jurisdictional problem in this case was not subtle. It was not buried in obscure procedural doctrine. It was identified by the client’s son — a non-lawyer — through basic legal research.

Under Wilkinson v. Zelen (2008) and Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, an attorney has an affirmative duty to identify all legal issues reasonably apparent on the face of the matter and advise the client accordingly. A jurisdictional defect visible to a layman is not a difficult threshold for a licensed attorney to meet.

Jon Atabek’s failure to:

• Identify the jurisdictional defect at intake
• Challenge jurisdiction before allowing merits rulings
• Preserve the Anti-SLAPP rights through transfer
• Re-prosecute the Anti-SLAPP in the correct forum

…constitutes negligence at every stage. Each failure compounded the one before it, and each compounded failure generated another billing cycle. The client paid for incompetence, and then was billed again for the consequences of that incompetence.

VI. Damages

Direct Economic Damages:

Consequential Damages:

• The opposing party Paul Topel, a malicious filer who used litigation as a harassment weapon against elderly people, was never held accountable
• No SLAPPback was filed, meaning the family received no compensation for the harassment they endured
• The elderly client suffered financial, emotional, and health-related harm from prolonged litigation that competent counsel could have terminated far earlier
• The family’s ability to pursue SLAPPback damages may now face statute of limitations complications caused by Jon’s inaction

Emotional Distress:

Under Spackman v. Good (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 518 and its progeny, breach of fiduciary duty by an attorney that causes prolonged litigation stress to an elderly client supports a claim for emotional distress damages, particularly where the attorney’s negligence directly caused the continuation of harassment the client hired him to stop.

VII. State Bar Violations — Grounds for Complaint

VIII. Recommended Actions

Immediate:

1. File a State Bar complaint at calbar.ca.gov — the recording evidence of Jon being corrected by a non-lawyer is extraordinarily valuable and should be submitted
2. Send a written demand for fee arbitration under Business & Professions Code § 6200 — this is a right the client cannot be waived out of by contract
3. Preserve all recordings, billing invoices, fee agreements, and written communications

Civil:

1. File a legal malpractice complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court
2. Add a cause of action under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30 for elder financial abuse — this unlocks attorney’s fees and punitive damages
3. Seek a full accounting of all fees billed versus services rendered
4. File the SLAPPback against Paul Topel independently — the clock and viability should be assessed immediately given transfer timeline

Leverage:

The recordings of Jon Atabek being corrected by our investigative reporter on points of law by a non-lawyer,. In a State Bar proceeding or civil malpractice trial, they are direct evidence of the competence standard not being met. Preserve them. Transcribe them. They are your strongest asset.