Geragos v. Abelyan - Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 8th Div. - February 28, 2023

Sep 15, 2026

Geragos v. Abelyan addresses a dispute arising from a client’s claims against former attorneys for allegedly taking $27,500 in legal fees without providing the promised representation. After new counsel became involved and communications occurred by email and telephone, the parties litigated the client’s filing of an anti-SLAPP motion. The former attorneys responded with a cross-complaint alleging extortion and related causes of action. The Court of Appeal affirms the trial court’s grant of the motion.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryGeneral

FormatPDF

Pages17

Reading Time6 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Affirmance of the Trial Court's Order

Factual and Procedural Background

Events Leading to Filing of Civil Complaint

7/ 12/24 , 11:56 PM Geragos v. Abelyan, 88 Cal. App. 5th 1005-Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist. , 8th Div. 2023-Google Scholar 88 Cal.App.5th 1005 (2023) 305 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303 MARK GERAGOS et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. ARMEN ABELYAN et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents. No. B310636 . Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight. February 28, 2023. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. 19STCV40558, Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed. Dhillon Law Group, Krista L. Baughman and Harmeet K. Dhillon for Cross-complainants and Appellants. Affeld Grivakes, Damion D. D. Robinson; Law Offices of Elliott N. Tiomkin and Elliott N. Tiomkin for Crossdefendants and Respondents. 1011 *1011 OPINION STRATTON, P. J.— INTRODUCTION With new counsel, a client sues his former attorneys, alleging they accepted $27,500 in fees from him but did not perform the promised legal services. New counsel engages in communications via e-mail and telephone with the former attorneys' representative and discusses the possible filing of a State Bar claim. The former attorneys file a cross-complaint against the client and his new counsel for extortion, among other claims. The client and his new counsel file an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court grants. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Events Leading to Filing of Civil Complaint From 2007 to 2011, Armen Abelyan (Abelyan) was a revenue agent with the IRS. In September 2011, he began training as a special agent. Prior to receiving his formal commission as a special agent, Abelyan 1012 received a traffic *1012 ticket and tried to use his status as a special agent "to get out of the ticket" both atthe time of citation and during his traffic court appearance. In 2014, Abelyan was charged with perjury and attempted impersonation of a public officer in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BA430254-01, People v. Abelyan. The prosecution argued Abelyan "lied about [https://scholar.google.com/scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar) case?case=13706161318699287962&q=Geragos+v. +Abelyan+&hl=en&as sdt=2006 1/17 7/ 12/24 , 11:56 PM Geragos v. Abelyan, 88 Cal. App. 5th 1005-Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist. , 8th Div. 2023-Google Scholar being a Special Agent and falsely impersonated a public officer in trying to get out of the ticket." Initially, Abelyan represented himself in the case, but realized he needed a lawyer for trial. On November 19, 2015, Abelyan paid $2,500 for a consultation with Setara Qassim (Qassim) and Mark Geragos (Geragos) of the firm Geragos & Geragos (Geragos Firm) . The consult lasted less than 15 minutes. They "agreed to take [the] case and requested an additional $25,000 ." That same day, Abelyan paid and signed a retainer agreement, which included the following relevant provisions: "This letter will serve as confirmation that the [Geragos Firm] will represent you related to the matter pending against you in Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, Department 114." "You retain and employ our firm to represent you in the matter referenced above. Our firm shall charge you a flat fee of $25,000 .00 for investigation only. If you wish that our firm be substituted in as counsel of record, a new retainer agreement will need to be negotiated." "Said FEE is a FLAT FEE which covers not only the legal services to be rendered but also secures the FIRM'S representation and reputation to assist you with this matter. A FLAT FEE is not based upon actual time spent on the case or the number of hours billed, but covers services that might be greater or lesser than the average for this type of case." (Boldface omitted. ) Geragos and Qassim assured Abelyan he "had nothing to worry about and that an attorney would show up the next day at trial." The next day, on November 20, 2015, Abelyan waited outside the courthouse but no one from the Geragos

FAQs

What led to the lawsuit in Geragos v. Abelyan?

A client alleged his former attorneys accepted $27,500 in fees but failed to perform the promised legal services. New counsel later engaged with the former attorneys’ representative about possible State Bar claims.

What procedural motion was filed and how did the trial court rule?

The client and his new counsel filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

What claims did the former attorneys assert in response?

The former attorneys filed a cross-complaint against the client and his new counsel, alleging extortion among other claims.

Sep 15, 2026

Upload by Ava Thompson