Case Number(s): 05-0-01956, 05-O-03607, 07-0-10192
In the Matter of: Kaveh Ardalan, Bar # 188775, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent)
Counsel For The State Bar: Suzan J. Anderson, Bar # 160559
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 3, 1997.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 20 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>>checked. until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: meaning the two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order. (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
Please see attachment, page 17
Attachment language begins here (if any):
Please see attachment pages 9-19.
Case Number(s): 05-0-01956, 05-O-03607, 07-0-10192
In the Matter of: Kaveh Ardalan A Member of the State Bar
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/6 months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
IN THE MATTER OF: KAVEH ARDALAN
CASE NUMBER(S): 05-O-01956, 05-0-03607, 07-0-10192
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.
CASE NUMBER 05-0-01956
COUNT ONE
FACTS
1. In June 2001, Mina Saidi ("Saidi") employed Respondent to represent her and her minor daughter, Sharin, in a personal injury claim arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on November 14, 2000. The retainer agreement signed by Respondent and Saidi stated that Respondent would be compensated on a contingency fee basis.
2. At all relevant times herein, Saidi possessed uninsured motorist coverage with Mercury Insurance Company ("Mercury").
3. On June 19, 2001, Respondent filed an Uninsured Motorist Claim with Mercury on behalf of Saidi and her daughter.
4. On June 17, 2004, counsel for Mercury served Respondent with form interrogatories and requests for production of documents for Saidi and her daughter. Although Respondent received the form interrogatories and the requests for production of documents, he failed to respond to either.
5. On June 18, 2004, counsel for Mercury filed a petition to assign a case number and allow discovery in an uninsured motorist claim in Orange County Superior Court entitled, Mercury Insurance Company v. Saidi, case number 04CC01112 (the "uninsured motorist case").
6. Prior to December 2004, counsel for Mercury properly served a Notice of Deposition to take the Deposition of Saidi and her daughter on Respondent. Respondent did not notify Saidi or her daughter of the deposition notices and no one appeared at the properly noticed depositions scheduled by counsel for Mercury.
7. On December 6, 2004, counsel for Mercury filed three motions to compel in the uninsured motorist case; one to compel the depositions of Saidi and her daughter, one to compel responses to the form interrogatories and one to compel the production of documents pursuant to the request for production of documents. Respondent was properly served with all three motions, but failed to respond to any of the three.
8. On January 4, 2005, the Orange County Superior Court granted all three motions to compel filed by counsel for Mercury and ordered Respondent to pay $900 in sanctions to counsel for Mercury.
9. In February 2005, the depositions of Saidi and her daughter were completed by counsel for Mercury with Respondent appearing on behalf of Saidi and her daughter.
10. On March 31, 2005, May 10, 2005 and June 9, 2005, counsel for Mercury wrote to Respondent requesting that Respondent cooperate in scheduling an arbitration hearing for the uninsured motorist case. Although Respondent received all three letters, he did not respond. Counsel for Mercury also made repeated telephone calls to Respondent’s office in March, April, May and June of 2005, leaving messages regarding the scheduling of the arbitration hearing. Respondent did not respond to the telephone messages.
11. On May 20, 2005, counsel for Mercury properly served Respondent with supplemental interrogatories and a supplemental request for production of documents for Sharin. Respondent did not respond to the supplemental discovery served by counsel for Mercury.
12. On July 6, 2005, Respondent spoke with counsel for Mercury and agreed to have one of several retired judges, including Judge Robert Jameson, serve as an arbitrator at the arbitration of the uninsured motorist case.
13. On July 7, 2005, counsel for Mercury wrote to Respondent to advise him that Mercury was agreeable to the appointment of Judge Jameson and requested that Respondent confirm in writing that Judge Jameson would be acceptable to Saidi and her daughter. Although Respondent received the letter, he did not respond.
14. On July 9, 2005, counsel for Mercury wrote to Respondent advising Respondent that Mercury’s subpoena of Saidi’s records from the Employment Development Department was objected to by the facility. Counsel for Mercury enclosed an authorization for the records to be signed by Saidi and requested that Respondent return the executed authorization to Mercury.
Although Respondent received the letter, Respondent failed to have Saidi execute the authorization and failed to return the authorization to Mercury,
15. On August 12, 2005, counsel for Mercury wrote to Respondent and advised
Respondent that the arbitration hearing could not go forward until Respondent agreed in writing to an arbitration. Although Respondent received the letter, he did not respond.
16. On October 20, 2005, counsel for Mercury wrote to Respondent and requested that he contact counsel so the uninsured motorist claim could be either arbitrated or settled. Although Respondent received the letter, he did not respond.
17. To date, the uninsured motorist claim has not been arbitrated or settled. Respondent has taken no action to prosecute the matter on behalf of Saidi and her daughter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to respond to Mercury’s discovery, failing to provide the executed authorization on behalf of Saidi to Mercury, failing to cooperate with counsel for Mercury in either settling Saidi’s case or scheduling the arbitration hearing, and failing to take any other action to prosecute the matter on behalf of Saidi and her daughter, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
COUNT TWO
FACTS
18. The stipulated facts of paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein.
19. By failing to either settle Saidi’s and her daughter’s case or cooperate with Mercury in scheduling the arbitration hearing, Respondent effectively withdrew from representation of Saidi and her daughter.
20. At no time did Respondent inform Saidi that he was withdrawing from employment in Saidi’s case. Nor did Respondent take any other steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his clients.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to take the necessary steps to complete Saidi’s and Sharin’s cases, failing to inform Saidi and Sharin of his intent to withdraw from employment, and failing to take any other steps to avoid prejudice to his clients, Respondent wilfully failed, upon termination of employment, to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client in wilful violation of rule 3-700(A)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
COUNT THREE
FACTS
21. The stipulated facts of paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein.
22. Between February 2005 and April 2005, Saidi repeatedly telephoned Respondent’s office at the telephone number he gave her to inquire about the status of her case. Each time, Saidi left a message for Respondent requesting that Respondent return her call regarding the status of her case.
23. Respondent did not respond to any of Saidi’s telephone messages.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to respond at all to Saidi’s telephone messages, Respondent failed to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries in wilful violation of section 6068(m) of the Business and Professions Code.
CASE NUMBER 05-0-03607
COUNT FOUR
FACTS
24. In or about 2000, Gholam H. Shojai ("Shojai") employed Respondent to pursue a property damage claim against Farmer’s Insurance Exchange ("Farmers"). On that date, Respondent and Shojai executed a retainer agreement for Shojai’s case.
25. On February 11, 2002, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Shojai in Orange County Superior Court, entitled Gholam Shojai v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, case number 02CC02680.
26. On December 17, 2002, Respondent dismissed case number 02CC02680 as the case had been scheduled for trial and Respondent and Shojai were not ready for trial.
27. On January 17, 2003, Respondent filed another complaint on behalf of Shojai in Page Orange County Superior Court, entitled Gholam Shojai v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, case number 03CC01811.
28. On April 4, 2003, the Court granted a demurrer filed by Farmers and gave Respondent 20 days leave to amend.
29. On April 25, 2003, Respondent filed the First Amended Complaint on behalf of Shojai in Orange County Superior Court.
30. In September 2003, the Judge in the Shojai matter determined the case was one of limited jurisdiction and transferred the case to North Court in Fullerton, which changed the case number to 03NL42572.
31. In July 2004, Farmers filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Shojai matter. Respondent was properly served with the motion.
32. Respondent failed to timely file an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Farmers, and the Court refused to consider the tardy opposition.
33. On August 20, 2004, the Court granted Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and on September 8, 2004 a Notice of Entry of Judgment in favor of Farmers was filed in the Shojai matter and the case was dismissed.
30. In August 2004, Farmers properly noticed Shojai’s deposition for August 22, 2004. Respondent and Shojai appeared for Shojai’s deposition of August 22, 2004. The deposition was not completed that day and was continued to August 23, 2004 while Respondent was present at the deposition, because Notice of Entry of Judgment in favor of Farmers had not yet been signed by the Court.
31. On August 23, 2004, Respondent did not appear for the second day of Shojai’s deposition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to appear for the second day of Shojai’s deposition and failing to timely file the opposition to Farmers Motion for Summary Judgment which was not considered by the Court thereby allowing Shojai’s case to be dismissed, Respondent intentionally, recklessly or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in wilful violation of Rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
COUNT FIVE
FACTS
35. The stipulated facts of paragraphs 24 through 31 are incorporated herein.
36. Between September 2004 and August 2005, Shojai left several telephone messages for Respondent at the telephone number which Respondent gave him, always requesting a return call regarding the status of Shojai’s case. Respondent received the telephone messages but did not respond.
37. On September 26, 2005 and October 19, 2005, Shojai sent letters to Respondent requesting contact regarding the status of his case. Respondent received the letters, but did not respond.
38. Shortly thereafter, Shojai employed new counsel for his case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing to respond to Shojai’s telephone messages and letters, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
CASE NUMBER 07-0-10192
COUNT SIX
FACTS
39. On December 2, 2005, the Supreme Court of California issued an Order imposing discipline ("Disciplinary Order") on Respondent in case number S137450. In the Disciplinary Order, the Court placed Respondent on one (1) year probation subject to conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar court in its Order Approving Stipulation in State Bar Court case number 04-0-14645. Respondent was properly served with the Disciplinary Order. On January 1, 2006, the Disciplinary Order became effective.
40. On or about December 9, 2005, a Probation Deputy with the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), sent a letter to Respondent enclosing a copy of the Disciplinary Order and the conditions of his probation. The Probation Deputy’s letter was placed in a sealed envelope correctly addressed to Respondent at his State Bar of California membership records address. The letter was mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing for collection by the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business. The United States Postal Service did not return the Probation Deputy’s letter as undeliverable or for any other reason. Respondent received the Probation Deputy’s letter.
41. Pursuant to the Disciplinary Order, the terms and conditions of probation imposed on Respondent included the following:
a. Contact the Office of Probation by January 30, 2006. Respondent did not contact the Office of Probation until January 5, 2007, after receiving a copy of a letter sent to the State Bar Court regarding Respondent’s non-compliance with the MPRE condition of his probation.
b. Submit quarterly reports to the Office of Probation commencing with an April 10, 2006 report and continuing on July 10, 2006, October 10, 2006 and a final report due January 1, 2007. Respondent has not complied in that his quarterly reports due April 10, 2006, July 10, 2006, October 10, 2006 and January 1, 2007, have not been filed to date.
c. By January 1, 2007, provide the Office of Probation with satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session. To date, Respondent has not provided the Office of Probation with proof of his attendance at State Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of the session.
d. By January l, 2007, provide the Office of Probation with satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of State Bar Client Trust Accounting School, and passage of the test given at the end of the session. To date, Respondent has not provided the Office of Probation with proof of his attendance at State Bar Client Trust Accounting School, and passage of the test given at the end of the session.
42. On June 6, 2006, per Respondent’s request, the Office of Probation sent a facsimile copy of the initial probation letter dated December 9, 2005, with attachments to Respondent at the facsimile number he provided to the Office of Probation. The transmittal record indicates that fourteen (14) pages were successfully faxed to Respondent. Respondent received the facsimile.
43. On January 5, 2007, Respondent called the Probation Deputy and informed her that he received a copy of the Office of Probation’s letter to the State Bar Court regarding his noncompliance with the MPRE condition of his probation. The Probation deputy inquired if Respondent had complied with the other conditions of his probation (State Bar Ethics School, State Bar Client Trust Account School, and quarterly reports). Respondent said he had not complied, and asked what he could do to comply. The Probation Deputy suggested that Respondent might want to file a Motion for Extension, sign up for State Bar Ethics School, State Bar Client Trust Account School, and send in his quarterly reports. Respondent said he would send the quarterly reports to the Office of Probation by January 8, 2007. To date, the Office of Probation has not received any quarterly reports from Respondent.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
By not contacting the Office of Probation by January 30, 2006, by not filing the quarterly reports due April 10, 2006, July 10, 2006, October 10, 2006 and the final report due January 1, 2007, by not providing proof of attendance and passage of the test at State Bar Ethics School, by not providing proof of attendance and passage of the test at State Bar Client Trust Account School, Respondent failed to comply with the conditions of his probation in the Disciplinary Order issued by the Supreme Court of California in case number S137450 in wilful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page one, paragraph A.(7), was November 8, 2007.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Respondent has cooperated fully with the State Bar, has discussed all issues at length and is eager to comply with all conditions.
Case numbers 05-0-01956 and 05-0-03670
Between January 2004 and June 2004, Respondent and his long-standing girlfriend of many years were attending couples therapy to attempt to save their relationship from issues which arose between them. In late June 2004, Respondent and his girlfriend terminated the relationship. Respondent continued treating with a therapist throughout 2004 to deal with issues regarding the termination of the relationship, his girlfriend’s three suicide attempts after June 2004, and his girlfriend’s suicide in late 2004. Respondent’s therapist advised him to see a psychiatrist after his girlfriend’s suicide.
In early 2005, Respondent treated with a psychiatrist who prescribed Welbutrin for Respondent. Respondent took the Welbutrin for approximately 60 days, but discontinued after that because the side effects were too much for him. Respondent was experiencing severe mood swings from the Welbutrin, going from depression to manic anxiety during this time. When Respondent discontinued the Welbutrin, he no longer experienced the side effects. Respondent continued treating with a therapist for several months until he overcame the problems associated with his girlfriend.
Respondent has informed the State Bar that the events experienced with his girlfriend were very disruptive and emotional for Respondent in 2004 (and the attempt to resolve the problems Respondent experienced with the prescription of Welbutrin in 2005), the time of Respondent’s misconduct. Respondent believes he is now recovered from all of the experiences with his girlfriend and the side effects of the Welbutrin and has a better handle on his law practice. Due to the passage of time, the grieving process which Respondent experienced with the assistance of professionals, it appears that these extraordinary personal circumstances were an aberrational cause of Respondent’s distraction in his law practice.
Case Number 07-0-10192
Respondent attempted to take and pass the MPRE prior to the termination of his probationary period as ordered in the prior discipline, but was unable to pass it on the first attempt. Accordingly, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law from February 12, 2007 through April 16, 2007. That suspension was terminated when he actually passed the MPRE.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTS SUPPORTING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
In case number 05-0-01956, Ms. Saidi’s and her daughter’s cases have been in limbo due to Respondent’s failure to perform and they have not had a resolution of their cases. As of 11/8/07 these cases have been resolved.
In case number 05-O-03607, Mr. Shojai had to employ a new attorney to resolve his case due to Respondent’s failure to perform.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
The stipulated discipline of one year stayed suspension and two years probation to include six months actual suspension and conditions is consistent with the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct ("Standards") and the relevant case law.
Pursuant to Standard 1.3, the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions for professional misconduct are, "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession."
Standard 1.6(b)(2) provides that where there are compelling mitigating circumstances, a lesser degree of sanction than the appropriate sanction shall be imposed or recommended.
Standard 1.7(a) provides that when a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline imposed was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal in severity that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.
Standard 2.4(b) provides that culpability of a member of wilfully failing to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or culpability of a member of willfully failing to communicate with a client shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client.
Standard 2.6 (a) provides that culpability of a member for a violation of Business and Professions Code 6068 shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3.
The Supreme Court gives the Standards "great weight," and will reject a recommendation consistent with the Standards only where the Court entertains "grave doubts" as to its propriety. In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 186, 190; see also In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 91, 92. Further, although the Standards are not mandatory, it is well established that the Standards may be deviated from only when there is compelling, well-defined reason to do so. See Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 276, 291; see also Bates v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 1056, 1060, fn. 2.
The State Bar recognizes that the Standards should not be applied in a talismanic fashion. Gary v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 820, 828. However, Respondent bears the burden to demonstrate that the State Bar should deviate from the Standards.
In Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 921, the member was employed to handle an uncontested divorce. When his client’s spouse stopped cooperating, and despite efforts of his client to contact him, Van Sloten simply discontinued work. At hearing he received a public reproval. The Review Department increased the discipline to two years stayed. The Supreme Court reduced it to six months stayed, noting that it was a failure to perform without serious consequences to the client.
In the matter of Harris v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1082, the member failed to perform in one client matter, but over a four-year period. In contrast with Van Sloten, the conduct of Harris caused substantial harm to the client. Harris was suspended for three years, including ninety (90) days of actual suspension.
In the matter of Calvert v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 765, the member failed to communicate with a client and failed to perform with competence in one matter. Although the member had a prior for similar misconduct, he had a substantial record of pro bono activities and community service which was considered in mitigation. Calvert was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed on probation for one year with conditions to include a 60 day actual suspension.
In the matter of Potack v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 132, the Supreme Court found that the members violation of his probation warranted the Review Department’s recommendation that the prior order of stayed suspension be set aside.
In the instant matter, Respondent has violated all the conditions of his prior disciplinary probation and has two client matters in which he failed to perform competently and failed to communicate with his clients. For the probation violation matter, the prior order of stayed suspension is being set aside, although the two months Respondent has already spent on actual suspension due to his failure to take and pass the MPRE is being taken into consideration, which would warrant four months actual suspension for the probation violation. In addition, the two client matters warrant sixty days actual suspension, bringing the total actual suspension to six months, well within the Standards and the above-cited case law.
MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION EXCLUSION.
It is recommended that respondent not be required to take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination because he was ordered to take and pass the examination on January 1, 2006, in connection with his prior discipline in case number 04-0-14645 and has taken and passed the MPRE in April 2007.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 05-O-01956, 05-O-03607, 07-O-10192
In the Matter of: Kaveh Ardalan
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Kaveh Ardalan
Date: 11/08/2007
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Suzan J. Anderson
Date: 11/8/07
Case Number(s): 05-O-01956, 05-O-03607, 07-O-10192
In the Matter of: Kaveh Ardalan
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b) and 802(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Donald F. Miles
Date: 11/8/07
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on November 14, 2007, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING ACTUAL SUSPENSION
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
KAVEH ARDALAN
2100 N BROADWAY STE 200
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
SUZAN ANDERSON, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 14, 2007.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court