Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

Show Me the Money, Pacific Employers Asks in California Lawsuit

January 29th, 2013 - Pacific Employers Insurance Co. has gone to court to try to find nearly $50,000 Pacific says it is owed by a California firm that it says has gone to great lengths to hide sizable assets.

The ACE Group unit filed a complaint for creditor’s suit in the aid of enforcement of a judgment, and relief against fraudulent transfers. It was filed in suit in Los Angeles in California Superior Court and names as defendants CSIRY Inc., doing business as State Organizations Inc., SPS-Security Parking Services and Siry Haus Inc. Also named as defendants were individuals Chenais Siry and Shervin “Shawn” Nowrooz.

Pacific Employers contends that all of the defendants are agents of the other defendants, and that a unity of interest exists between them and that “any separateness between the defendants has ceased.” All of the defendants are alleged to be successors in interest to a party that is liable to Pacific Employers.

That “party” would be State Organizations, against whom Pacific Employers is a creditor by virtue of two separate claims; one for $28,705 and a second for $20,568. The insurer did not state in the court action what prompted those claims.

Plaintiffs said State Organizations, Siry Haus and CSIRY Inc. are mere shells, instrumentalities or conduits of a common enterprise operated by Siry and Nowrooz. They allegedly share the same offices and employ the same people.

Plaintiffs said this common enterprises “hawks” exercise equipment through websites and business names that include City Private Security and Security & Parking Services.  They have transferred business assets from one firm to another following judgments (one in January, 2012, while the second was entered on Nov. 13, 2012) and have abandoned use of State Organizations in favor of CSIRY Inc. and Siry Haus, according to the Complaint.

Pacific Employers asked the court to decree that the defendants are alter egos of one another, and thus are jointly liable for the judgments. It asked for a judgment against all defendants except State Organization (as it already has that ruling).
 

Like us on facebook!

Please note that article images are for illustrative purposes only. Images do not necessarily depict the actual facts, events, or people discussed in this story.