How can Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801 National kick a doctor out of his office -- a thriving practice he has maintained in the same building for over 16 years? Let's take a closer look so you can understand.
I've given you my suggestions and now you can be the judge. I've decided to reveal a series of legal letters that will help the public understand this injustice. There is unfinished business regarding this story and the truth needs to be told and the owners need to be exposed for their unscrupulous behavior. For the record -- I refuse to play the victim and am not looking for sympathy. The owners were not right to do such a thing, and with this post I can set the record straight and reprimand and expose the folks responsible for these actions.
MAIN TREATING ROOM AT SUITE 580 - Now Empty.
Retaliation is the only basis for this "eviction" (forced out) and furthermore, the wrong message was sent to the public and the tenants of 10801. The retaliation was in response to this very blog. See left side bar for more details.
Oh yes, we welcome any comments from NIC -- and we will gladly post them. We are looking for a formal apology along with reinstatement to have my office back. Right now Dr. Graff has two empty rooms on account of the owner's actions – and you know it’s not easy filling office space in this current economy.
Media outlets should contact our email address - 10801takesigndown@gmail.com -- We would greatly appreciate help in getting this story out and help direct traffic to this site.
Also you can contact my attorney Kevin P. Hall by clicking on his name. I've given him permission to speak with the media regarding this case.
Here are 7 letters with comments to help explain this unreal series of events. (A signed PDF is available for all of these letters on request)
Letter #1:
February 16, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff
Notice of Default
NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE
Via Hand Delivery
February 16, 2009
TO: ANDREW C. GRAFF, D.C.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED within thirty (30) days after this notice is served upon you either to:
a. Cure the breach by you of Section 10 of the January 5, 2004 Lease you have with National Investment Company ("NIC") , as amended by First Addendum date May 1, 2008, for the premises, consisting of business accommodations, said premises are known and described as 10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580, Los Angeles, California 90064, of which you hold possession. Your breach consists of the unauthorized subleasing by you of all or a portion of the premises to David Allan, D.C.; or
b. To surrender and deliver up possession of said premises to NIC.; or
c. Remove your unauthorized subtenant and his property from the premises. If you fail to do so, legal proceedings will be commenced against you to recover possession of said premises with such other damages as may be allowed by law.
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY DECLARES AND GIVES NOTICE that Section 10 of the aforesaid Lease has been breached in that David Allan has stated orally and in writing throughout the blog he commenced publishing and disseminating to the public on
Upon timely submission to NIC of your written request and the additional materials listed about, before commencing its review thereof, pursuant to Section 23 of the aforesaid Lease you will be required to pay NIC such reasonable fee as NIC establishes for reviewing or preparing documents and /or credit reports applicable thereto.
NIC is mindful of its contractual and statutory obligations to not unreasonably withhold approval of your proposed subtenant. Therefore in order to assist NIC in making a reasonable and thorough analysis of whether approval of your proposed subtenant should be granted, the greater the detail provided in his current financial statements, the more likely it will be that NIC will be able to make an informed and fair decision. Conversely if no or only sketchy financial information is provided it would be less likely that NIC will be in position to consent to your proposed subtenant as NIC, through no fault of its own, will not have been provided sufficient information to make an informed decision and would therefore have a reasonable basis for withholding its consent.
Should you fail to timely cure the breach of Section 10 of the Lease, NIC WILL DECLARE A FORFEITURE of the Lease under which you hold possession of said premises, and will proceed to commence legal action for recovery of possession of said premises and for all monies due and owing under the terms of Sections 23 and 26 of said Lease.
NATIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY
By: JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., INC.
A Professional Corporation
jma@agapay.com
Off 310-470-1700
FAX 310-470-2602
Comments: This letter shocked both Dr. Graff and myself and many others that have the same office sharing arrangement in the building. The biggest shock the fact that they were asking for my financial records. Mind you, I'm not even on the lease or responsible to pay the owners directly. Keep in mind that in two previous leases with the owners, I was never asked to supply them with my financial records. Now they want detailed records to prove I'm authorized? It was clear that the owners were not happy with my blog and wanted to seek retaliation and found a sly technical way to put the squeeze on Dr. Graff to force me out.
Since Dr. Graff did not want to deal with a lawsuit, we decided it would be best for me to move out and he requested a two week extension to make it easier on him so he could have more time to find another occupant. That brings us to the next letter.
===========================
Letter #2
M
Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant
JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., APC
Attorneys at Law
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, California 90064-4184
Telephone (310) 470-1700
Fax (310) 470-2602
E-mail: jma@agapay.com
March 12, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
Re: Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant
Dear Dr. Graff:
Please be advised that your March 9, 2009 memorandum to National Investment Company ("NIC") is not in compliance with the terms of your written lease of Suite 580 in general, nor does it constitute an authorized modification or satisfaction, partial or otherwise, of the NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE ("Notice") that was dated and served upon you on February 16, 2009.
Your rights and obligations concerning occupancy of
You have recently made an oral request for an extension or delay of the 30-day time frame in which the Notice must be complied with in order to avoid institution of legal proceeding under the lease terms. There is no legal basis for such a request, and NIC is satisfied it has, under the Notice terms, given appropriate and adequate time for you to either cure or commence the process of curing your default relating to the unauthorized subtenancy of David Allan.
Your failure to timely cure your default under the lease will result in legal proceedings being instituted against you without further notice and at your further costs.
Sincerely,
Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb
cc: National Investment Company
Comments: This refusal not to give us a few more weeks was a pivotal point in this legal saga. I sought legal counsel and found an excellent attorney -- Kevin P. Hall. Dr. Graff sent a letter to the owners to give him permission to have Dr. Allan as a subtenant. That brings us to letter #3.
======================
Letter #3
March 16, 2009; Graff letter to Agapay
RE: Notice of Default
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Blvd.
Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA 90064
March 16, 2009
BY HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Joe M. Agapay, Jr., APC
Attorney at Law
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Re: Notice of Default
Dear Mr. Agapay:
In response to the notice of default that I received, I would like to address some points raised by the request that Dr. Allan leave the premises.
I do not believe that the office sharing arrangement that I have had with Dr. Allan, which the landlord and building representatives have known about for months, constitutes a sublease or breach of my lease. Furthermore, my relationship with Dr. Allan is similar to office sharing arrangements enjoyed by many other occupants of the building, who also share their offices with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord and its representatives. In fact, I am aware that Dr. Allan shared
Be that as it may, I am hereby requesting that the landlord agree to the continued office sharing relationship I have had with Dr. Allan. Dr. Allan has practiced in this building for approximately 15 years. In fact we shared
Although Dr. Allan's relocation will result in a significant loss of cash flow for me, the building is not in any risk of default by me in the payment of rent.
In my conversation with Dr. Allan, we are certain that Lois Agapay, the building manager, has known and has been aware of Dr. Allan's arrangements for the last several years, since his name is on our door and in the locked directories in the garage and in the main lobby. I also understand that Dr. Allan had two different leases with the owners and has demonstrated his obligations to those leases without any consequences. Since I am fully responsible for the rent, singling him out at this time is unreasonable.
Therefore, I believe the refusal of the landlord to agree to Dr. Allan's continued sharing of space in the office can really only be attributed to seeking retaliation for the unrelated disputes that the landlord has with Dr. Allan concerning his blog. As you know, I have not had any part in the blog and therefore I believe it is also unfair to penalize me for your client's own separate and unrelated dispute with Dr. Allan.
Nevertheless, if the landlord insists on disrupting my relationship with Dr. Allan and to avoid legal proceedings against me, he will be prepared to leave within the 30 day period that the landlord has already declined to extend if he is not approved. In light of the information enclosed in this letter, I anticipate that the landlord will agree to my request. Please let me know if Dr. Allan is approved by tomorrow,
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
cc: Dr. David Allan
Comments: From the beginning, we felt the owners were acting in bad faith and did not want and/or need to provide financial information to them. Dr. Graff and myself felt that any amount of financial documents were still going to result in a rejection. In a matter of hours we got a reply from Joe Agapay - Letter #4.
===========================
Letter #4
Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default
JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., APC
Attorneys at Law
Telephone (310) 470-1700
Fax (310) 470-2602
E-mail: jma@agapay.com
March 16, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default
Dear Dr. Graff:
We are in receipt of a letter of this date that appears to bear your signature. A copy was received mid-day via FAX and what appears to be an additional copy was hand delivered to my office by Dr. David Allan.
This letter commences with an inaccurate and an unwarranted accusatory charge. National Investment Company ("NIC") has made no "request that Dr. Allan leave the premises."
To the contrary, NIC has set out in detail the means by which you and Dr. Allan can, pursuant to the terms of your lease provide sufficient and justifiable information that would, in accordance with NIC's statutory and contractual obligations, compel NIC to not unreasonably withhold approval of Dr. Allan as a subtenant.
After setting forth numerous reasons why the author of this letter believes the "office sharing arrangement" between you and Dr. Allan does not constitute a breach of your lease with NIC the letter requests NIC to advise if Dr. Allan is approved (presumably as a subtenant). In promoting his chiropractic practice in his blog, Dr. Allan has made his subtenancy with you irrefutably clear.
No information of any nature has been received by NIC that would enable it to make a reasonably informed decision as to whether Dr. Allan is or is not an acceptable subtenant. Based on the history Dr. Allan has with NIC as a former tenant that resulted in NIC refusing to any longer enter into a lease with him, and in the absence of any current financial information on Dr. Allan, NIC must conclude Dr. Allan is an unacceptable subtenant.
If the terms of your lease and the cure provisions of the February 16, 2009 Notice of Default are not complied with as of
Sincerely,
Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb
cc: National Investment Company
Comments: First, Dr. Graff did authorize the
This letter falsely claims that you made "no request that Dr. Allan leave the premises." Agapay did indeed demand the "removal" of Dr. Allan in the Notice of Default, which demanded that Graff "remove [my] unauthorized subtenant" or face a lawsuit.
Regarding the history of "Dr. Allan", I never applied for another lease with NIC -- So how did NIC refuse to lease to me? How can you possibly question my ability to respond when I have paid rent for 190 consecutive months without any problems.
Joe Agapay may not be aware that I was planning to leave the building in 2005 when my last lease expired, but His wife Lois did. When I was planning to get another place in another building, I asked Lois for a letter of recommendation. That brings us to letter #5.
==============================
Letter #5
Lois Agapay (aka Lois Forshee) to Whom it may concern
Recommendation letter for Dr. Allan
Lois Forshee, Building Manager
10801 National Blvd Suite 601
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 475-5779
3-28-05
To Whom It May Concern:
Dr. David Allan Orenstein has been a tenant in our AIG / Sun America building for well over 10 years. I certainly do not mind offering my name as a viable reference because he has proven to be a good tenant and has always paid his rent on time. If you have any questions regarding this issue -- please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Lois Forshee
Comments: When I was planning to move in 2005 from the building, I got a recommendation letter from my residental landlord and one from my business landlord. In Agapay's last letter dated
=======================
Letter #6
Final letter from one friend and partner to another and refund
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles CA 90064
phone (310) xxxx-xxxx
March 18, 2009
Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default
Dr. David Allan
10801 National Blvd., Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
Dear Dr. Allan:
As you know, I fought very hard to keep you as a subtenant in my office. In spite of my efforts, NIC has informed me that it concluded that you are not an acceptable subtenant. They have further informed me that you must vacate the office no later than close of business on
Consequently, I have no choice but to demand that you vacate the premises on
I certainly regret this situation but I have done all that I can do to assist you. I wish you well in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
ACG/tm
Comments: Although we have a strong case against the owners, Graff's lease declares that the prevailing parties in a lawsuit will recover fees from the losing side. Since I was not on the lease, in the event we lose the case, he would be on the hook for the damages. It was not the risk he was willing to take and I can understand and respect his decision. That's why I moved out -- to protect my friend.
Letter #7
M
RE: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al
KULL•HALL LLP
1337 Ocean Avenue, Suite B
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (310) 451-6100
Fax: (310) 451-6033
www.kullhall.com
March 27, 2009
BY FAX 310.470.2602
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Joe M. Agapay, Esq.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Re: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al.
Dear Mr. Agapay:
We represent Dr. David Allan in connection with his wrongful eviction from
Dr. Allan has shared office space in the Building, with Dr. Graff and others, for approximately 15 years. Your client, the landlord National Investment Company (“landlord” or “NIC”), and your client’s agents and representatives, including you and your wife, Lois Agapay, who is an on-site manager for the landlord, have known about and consented to these office sharing arrangements during Dr. Allan’s lengthy tenure in the Building.
In January 2009, Dr. Allan started a blog about the unpermitted and unlawful supergraphic signs erected by the landlord on the sides of the Building. The signs are the subject of a 44-count criminal complaint against the landlord and its agents, including Lois Agapay, and others, in the action styled People of the State of California vs. World Wide Rush, etc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 9CA00023A. According to the criminal complaint, the supergraphic signs were erected by your client without required permits and in violation of various municipal code provisions and a City moratorium on off-site signs (Section 91.6201.1 et seq. of the Los Angeles Municipal Code). The supergraphic signs have also been cited by the Los Angeles Fire Department for other violations and they constitute hazards and a “clear danger” to public health and safety. According to the criminal complaint, the signs also violate the Outdoor Advertising Act codified in the Business and Professions Code, §§ 5200 et seq.
Concerned about the fire and building and safety code violations and the lack of information, input, or warning to occupants and visitors to the Building, Dr. Allan also helped to organize the public into the Coalition for 10801Tenant Safety and Justice (the “Coalition”). The purpose of the Coalition is to educate the public about the hazardous and unlawful conditions at the Building and help prepare occupants and visitors to the Building to deal with the threats to their health and safety.
Within one month of Dr. Allan’s organizing of the Coalition and the posting of his blog on the internet, you served a written Notice of Default and Thirty-Day Notice to Cure to Dr. Graff, falsely accusing him of being in breach of his lease and claiming that the landlord had not consented to his office arrangement with Dr. Allan, when in fact you, your wife and the landlord have known of and consented to their current arrangement and Dr. Allan’s office sharing arrangements with other workers in the Building. Your client’s knowledge and consent are evidenced by, among other things, the placement of Dr. Allan’s name and suite number on the lobby directory and name plate on the suite’s front door.
You also threatened to sue Dr. Graff if he did not terminate his arrangements with Dr. Allan and your client subsequently changed the locks to the suite, effectively locking Dr. Allan out of his own office. Your threats to Dr. Graff unlawfully interfere with Dr. Allan’s existing and prospective economic relations with Dr. Graff and threaten both of their livelihoods. Your client’s threats and false accusations to Dr. Graff are a direct result of, and in retaliation for, Dr. Allan’s complaints about the unlawful and hazardous building and health and safety issues. Your client is also no doubt motivated to stifle public awareness, suppress organization of tenants and workers in the Building, and inhibit tenants, workers and members of the public from asserting their rights.
Dr. Allan is incurring the loss of patients, business, opportunities and other damages every day since he has been wrongfully evicted due to your client’s retaliation and interference with his office sharing arrangements with Dr. Graff. We urge you and your client to reconsider the unlawful and ill-advised eviction of Dr. Allan and demand that he be restored to his offices in
Please direct all future communications to our office and refrain from any communication with our client.
Very truly yours,
Kevin P. Hall
Comments: There you have it. Once again, no pity please for me. That's the last reason for taking this action. I refuse to play the victim and will never ever consider an emotional distress claim against the owners... Now damages for business losses, and exposing the owners for who they really are -- that's another story.
Two options to respond:
Enter a comment directly to this post or
Send an email to: 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment