Eric Ladenheim v Medstreaming, Orange County Superior Court Case Number 30-2017-00901210.



Attorney Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharazi from the Yarra Law Group is listed by the California Court of Appeals as the attorney for the appellant and plaintiff in this case.




According to Lawzilla's understanding of the Court of Appeals ruling, this is what happened:

Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharazi, Esq., represented a doctor and professional company (Eric Ladenheim) who bought medical imaging software from Medstreaming, a company located in Washington.

To pay for the software Ladenheim obtained financing from a company called Balboa. The lawsuit began when Balboa sued Kharazi's client because he defaulted on the loan.

Ladenheim then sued Medstreaming claiming the software did not work right.

Medstreaming then claimed it could not be sued in California because it was in Washington and Ladenheim signed a contract agreeing any lawsuits would be filed in Washington.

The trial judge agreed with Medstreaming and stopped the California lawsuit against it.

Kharazi then filed an appeal and argued Ladenheim could sue Medstreaming in California.

Three appellate justices unanimously agreed with the trial judge that attorney Kharazi was wrong.




Initially, the court of appeals noted the contract was "clear" that any disputes would be decided in Washington. They also noted Kharazi conceded the contract was enforceable.




The justices then said attorney Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharazi was arguing the contract term was unreasonable because the doctor had been sued in California.

The court of appeals said "There is no precedent for such an outcome."

The judges said Kharazi's argument was "entirely" dependent on factors the "courts have consistently deemed irrelevant to the enforcement of a forum selection clause."

But even assuming the law was potentially on Kharazi's client's side, there was "no evidence" submitted to the trial court to show unreasonableness.




The court of appeals also noted Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharazi had mischaracterized the nature of the contract to the court.





Lawzilla Commentary: Ouch ...

It is Lawzilla's belief an attorney should not misrepresent or mischaracterize anything to a court. Besides being obviously improper and potentially unethical, in our view it diminishes the credibility of the attorney.

The court of appeal said the characterization of a contract was not accurate.

It is also our belief attorneys are supposed to know the law, especially when courts have consistently said a particular argument is irrelevant.

The court of appeal said there was no precedent for the claim Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharazi was making on behalf of the attorney's client, and that courts had consistently deemed the argument irrelevant.

It is our belief an attorney should know if evidence supports a position or not, and if it exists it should be submitted to the court.

The court of appeal said no evidence was submitted to the trial court on an important issue for Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharaz's client.

Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharazi was admitted to the California Bar in 1997. Bar Number 187894.

Yarra, Kharazi and Clason
2000 Fresno Street Suite 300
Fresno, California 93721

Law School: San Joaquin College of Law






Lawzilla Note: The firm name Yarra, Kharazi and Clason is different from the Yarra Law Group listed by the court of appeals in the Medstreaming case. We only found one attorney with the last name Kharazi in a State Bar search.