• Report: #758936

Complaint Review: David Ganezer

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Sun, July 31, 2011
  • Updated: Fri, January 11, 2013

  • Reported By: Vanessa — Los Angeles California United States of America
David Ganezer
1844 Lincoln Blvd Santa Monica, California United States of America

David Ganezer Santa Monica Observer DBA Filing gone wrong Santa Monica, California

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Owner

*Author of original report: David was paid

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Summary: She Never Paid Us.

*Author of original report: Let me clear up the facts since David seems to confuse them.

*REBUTTAL Individual responds: I never told Complainant that I was an attorney

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Every Allegation in this Complaint is False

*Author of original report: Update with further details

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Shame on me for not having checked this site before purchasing a DBA filing service with Santa Monica Observer/David Ganezer. 

Do not use this paper to file DBAs.  I had a horrible experience with Santa Monica Observer and its publisher, David Ganezer.  In short, I purchased a DBA filing service and he didn't come through.  Granted, there was a mix-up during which I canceled the credit card charge after "Santa Monica-Paypal" showed up on my credit card instead of "Santa Monica Observer".  But when I realized my mistake, I called American Express and reversed the cancellation.  AmEx paid Paypal (I had not known SMO collects funds for Internet purchases through Paypal) and I thought all was well.  Turns out Paypal didn't release the funds to SMO.  And when I asked David Ganezer to please look into it on his end, he made no phone calls to help resolve the situation.  I did a quick Google search on "David Ganezer attorney" and found information of his suspension from the California Bar for ethical violations.  

And now I'm out $126.00 and have no DBA.  

See the link to my blog for the entire story.  Buyer beware.  
(((link redacted)))

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/31/2011 05:26 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/David-Ganezer/Santa-Monica-California-90404/David-Ganezer-Santa-Monica-Observer-DBA-Filing-gone-wrong-Santa-Monica-California-758936. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on David Ganezer

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
3Author 0Consumer 4Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Owner

AUTHOR: Sm observer - (U.S.A.)

What if there are people who report legitimate businesses that they've had positive experiences with, just to shake them down for money? Vanessa Ting got her DBA within 48 hours of the time she paid us $126.  Then she charged back the card, and reported us to Ripoff report.

When her bank (AMEX) agreed that we were right and paid us the $126 despite her chargeback, she called our lawyer to ask for the $126 and other money, or she would report us to "every website I can find." We all know once it's on the internet, it's there until the end of time, whether it's true or not.  Note her name and don't do business with her:  Vanessa Ting.  Thank you.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

David was paid

AUTHOR: Vanessa - (United States of America)

I'm not going to attach my credit card statement, nor the statement from American Express Cardmember Services, indicating that payment was made.  Nor will I quote the PayPal account reps (both of them) who verified that payment was received by PayPal.  

Just take this as a cautionary tale that this is not someone who does business fairly or ethically.  

5 minutes of googling will reveal that he has a past of questionable ethics.  Whereas I have none.  

 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Summary: She Never Paid Us.

AUTHOR: Sm observer - (U.S.A.)

Customer Vanessa Ting is turning this into a novel.   I'm busy, as I know you the Reader are.  So I'm going to summarize the facts here in just a few words.

THE COMPANY'S SUMMARY
1.  Customer immediately charged back her Amex card, which she admits.  She was entitled to nothing.  We've posted the details of her chargeback above.

2.  Despite not paying, Customer received a DBA and advertising worth $126--just what she ordered.

3.  As a result, The Company lost $26 in government filing fees, $30 messenger fees, and $20 as a bank chargeback fee.  So she cost us $76 net.

4.  There absolutely was a Ripoff here.  We were "ripped off" by this Customer.

5.  You can look up Customer's "Retail Path" DBA which we filed for her, at the LA County Recorder's Website:  http://www.lavote.net/clerk/FBN_Results.cfm

6.  To add insult to injury, she filed the above voluminous complaint.  

7.  There is just no pleasing some people.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report

Let me clear up the facts since David seems to confuse them.

AUTHOR: Vanessa - (United States of America)

David's rebuttal #1:
1.  Vanessa Ting ordered a DBA from us on 4/12/11.  We filed it on
4/14/11.  Don't take my word for it.  You the reader, can verify this by
clicking on the following link, and entering the name of her business
RETAIL PATH.  Note that she received Instrument Number 2011007132, and
that we also filed a proof of publication, Instrument Number 2011007132.
   http://www.lavote.net/clerk/fbn_search.cfm

Vanessa's Response #1:  David is playing on the general public's lack of familiarity with the DBA filing process.  David *filed* the DBA.  The next step typically is to publish the business name for 4 weeks to make sure no one else claims to be using it.  He *told* me he published the DBA in his paper for 4 weeks (I never received a copy of the proof of publication).  He *told* me he submitted the proof to LA County.  Again, I have no way of knowing whether he did until I receive an approval from the LA County in the mail.  I have not received anything from the LA County approving my DBA filing and it is already August.  He first filed the DBA in April.  Upon my requests for updates, he provided me with none other than "I submitted your proof of publication on June 11th".  However, the LA County still has not sent anything in the 2 months that have lapsed since then.  And prior research tells me that it should not take this long.  Something happened...but David is refusing to help me figure out the reason for the delay. 

David's rebuttal #2:
2.  We did everything we agreed to do in exchange for  $126.  Despite
this, on 4/12/11 Ms. Ting charged back the $126.  We have been paid
nothing to this day.  Not even the $26 we paid to file her DBA.  Note
that our merchant processing service, Paypal charged us $20 due to Ms.
Ting's charge back (see hereinbelow).

Vanessa's response #2:  Actually, I'm not sure he did everything he agreed to do.  After all, I still do not have the approved DBA records.  Also ask him if he did anything to troubleshoot with Paypal, who is HIS service provider and who had also made attempts to contact David via email (as I'm told by Paypal) upon my urging.  Sure, he is not contractually obligated to do it, but if he wants to get paid, he should. This is a matter of customer service.  Not legalities. 

The reason for the chargeback is listed in the original complaint above.  It was a misunderstanding, but was then reversed within hours of David informing me of the chargeback.  As I already mention above, David has not been paid by Paypal.  Paypal is his funds collector.  Paypal has already verified on the phone with me twice that they received my funds.  But for some reason not known to me, they refuse to release the funds to David.  As much as I pushed them to send him the money, they would not.  I'm wondering if David did something before to Paypal to cause them to hold the funds.  Regardless, I have paid.  Both American Express and Paypal can attest to that if David would call them.  And despite my many requests for him to do so, David has not called Paypal to this day as far as I know.

David's rebuttal#3:

3.  Many businesses deal with less than ten customers in a year.  We
help thousands of people to file DBAs--all kinds of people.  I can only
conclude based on her behavior, that Vanessa Ting suffers from paranoid
personality disorder.

Vanessa's response #3:  I think his statement speaks for itself.  I would also like to point out he was suspended from the California State Bar for unethical behavior.  So it would not be far fetched for someone with such morals to make such a spiteful and inappropriate comment. 

David's rebuttal #4:
4.  Below is correspondence between us and the complainant, which
contradicts what she writes in her own report (i.e., she acknowledges
receiving "Retail Path" DBA and thanks us for our prompt
service!!!!!!!!!)

Vanessa's response #4: No contradiction was made.  I thanked David for his prompt attention to my online order on 4/12/11.  The date stamp in the email exchange he provided shows that.  My issue with his lack of communication and lack of performance begins in June.  Then heats up in July.  David is confusing the facts. 

David's rebuttal #5:
5.  Also Below is correspondence we sent to the lawyer she hired to get
us to give her a copy of her DBA, which is curious, since she can get a
copy from the LA County Recorder anytime she wants.  So can you, it's a
public record.


Vanessa's response #5: Again, he is purposefully evading the
point that Paypal, whom he hired to collect his online payments, is the
one withholding $126 from him.  Not me.  My payment to American Express
for $126 was long ago processed...and the funds deducted from my
checking account.  He's being very unhelpful and unprofessional in how he
is handling this situation in this forum.  And I have an observation: 



  • Is he trying to resolve this situation, even now?  Nope, he is  arguing instead.  Is he promising to send me the proof of publication to show that he did, in fact, publish my DBA?  Nope, he is arguing instead.  Is he going to expedite the processing with LA County so that he can show that he had submitted my proof of publication for approval? 


  • I would love for him to prove me wrong and show me either my proof of publication or the LA County's notice that they have approved my filing.  And I would love for him to also call PayPal to get the funds released.  But instead of doing either to show his good faith, he is arguing every word, which is not productive. 
No, I didn't hire an attorney.  I asked a colleague, who happens to be an attorney, for her help.  When she saw the injustice that David was inflicting on me, she took pity and offered her help.  And again, I cannot get a copy of  anything from the LA County Recorder because, as far as I know, they have not received a proof of publication from David.  I welcome David to correct me if I'm wrong by sending me the proof of publication. 

Vanessa's response to David's note about not being an attorney:  I filed my complaint under the "Attorney and Legal Services" section because that is where I found the other complaints against you.  But now that I look again, you also have complaints filed against you in the following 3 sections:  "Senior Services", "Advertising/Deceptive" and "Legal Process Services".  Wow, there are just so many to choose from! 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 REBUTTAL Individual responds

I never told Complainant that I was an attorney

AUTHOR: Sm observer - (U.S.A.)

This complaint is filed under "Attorneys and legal services."  I never told complainant that I was an attorney, and we deliver advertising, not legal services.
Each and every e mail i sent Complainant, contains the following disclaimer:

"The writer of this e mail is not an attorney.  Nothing herein is intended as legal advice.  If you need legal advice or representation, you should consult with an attorney."
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Every Allegation in this Complaint is False

AUTHOR: Sm observer - (U.S.A.)

1.  Vanessa Ting ordered a DBA from us on 4/12/11.  We filed it on 4/14/11.  Don't take my word for it.  You the reader, can verify this by clicking on the following link, and entering the name of her business RETAIL PATH.  Note that she received Instrument Number 2011007132, and that we also filed a proof of publication, Instrument Number 2011007132.    http://www.lavote.net/clerk/fbn_search.cfm

2.  We did everything we agreed to do in exchange for  $126.  Despite this, on 4/12/11 Ms. Ting charged back the $126.  We have been paid nothing to this day.  Not even the $26 we paid to file her DBA.  Note that our merchant processing service, Paypal charged us $20 due to Ms. Ting's charge back (see hereinbelow).

3.  Many businesses deal with less than ten customers in a year.  We help thousands of people to file DBAs--all kinds of people.  I can only conclude based on her behavior, that Vanessa Ting suffers from paranoid personality disorder.

4.  Below is correspondence between us and the complainant, which contradicts what she writes in her own report (i.e., she acknowledges receiving "Retail Path" DBA and thanks us for our prompt service!!!!!!!!!)

5.  Also Below is correspondence we sent to the lawyer she hired to get us to give her a copy of her DBA, which is curious, since she can get a copy from the LA County Recorder anytime she wants.  So can you, it's a public record.

Below please find correspondence between myself and Vanessa Ting.  At one time Ms. Ting did pay us $126, but she immediately charged back her Amex Card.  She has paid us nothing to this very day.  For this reason, we owe her nothing in the way of services or money.
We only provide advertising services to people who pay us, or on occasion to recognized charitable agencies.  Neither category applies to Vanessa Ting.
We wish her the best of luck with her business, and you the best of luck with yours.
David Ganezer, Publisher
Santa Monica Observer Newspaper1844 Lincoln BlvdSanta Monica, CA 90404
Tel:  (310) 452-9900Fax:  (310) 388-1235
Editor@smobserver.com
The writer of this e mail is a licensed Los Angeles County Legal Document Assistant, LDA-385, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6400 et.seq.  The writer of this e mail is not an attorney.  Nothing herein is intended as legal advice.  If you need legal advice or representation, you should consult with an attorney.

Transaction Details


Chargeback Settlement (Unique Transaction ID # 08T89413BL133312G)
See related 03F39146A3797463G
Original Transaction Date Type Status Details Gross Fee Net Apr 12, 2011Payment From Vanessa Ting Completed Details$126.00 USD -$3.95 USD $122.05 USD 
Related Transactions Date Type Status Details Gross Fee Net May 23, 2011The funds that were placed on temporary hold are now available for use Removed Details-$126.00 USD $3.95 USD -$122.05 USD  Jun 2, 2011Update to Reversal Canceled Details$122.05 USD $0.00 USD $122.05 USD  Jun 2, 2011Chargeback Settlement Completed ...-$126.00 USD -$20.00 USD -$146.00 USD 


Chargeback Settlement    
Total amount:
-$126.00 USDFee amount:
-$20.00 USDNet amount:
-$146.00 USD
Option Names and Values:
 
Process My DBA: File & Publish DBA


Date:
Jun 2, 2011Time:
09:22:27 PDTStatus:
Completed
Subject:
Chargeback Recovery



You bet Im working late
tonight.  Thanks for sending the DBA filing and I saw the note about
solicitations from other publishers.  Thanks for the warning!

Thanks again for everything. 
More people need to know the SM Observer does this.  Its a lot more
straightforward of a process than the others.  Thanks!

Hope its not a late one for you.
Best,?Vanessa

------

vanessa ting * product
development and retail strategy *  ?los angeles | 818 350 3291 | vting@vanessating.com ?big news!  next month we are rebranding to RetailPATH

 

From: Santa Monica Observer
[mailto:editor@smobserver.com] ?Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:50 PM?To:
vting@vanessating.com?Subject:
Retail Path DBA Attached!!!

 

Hi, Vanessa.  Working late
tonight?  Our usual brilliant information follows:Your DBA is attached.  We will now publish it for 4
weeks, and then submit a proof of publication.  You will receive the
original DBA and your Proof of Publication in the mail.

 

Please be advised that you will also
receive mailed solicitations from other companies asking you to pay to publish
your DBA.  You have already paid us to publish your DBA, so there is no
reason to pay anyone a second time.

  

David Ganezer, Publisher

Santa Monica Observer Newspaper

1844 Lincoln Blvd

Santa Monica, CA 90404

 

Tel:  (310) 452-9900

Fax:  (310) 388-1235

 

Editor@smobserver.com

 

The writer of this e mail is a licensed
Los Angeles County Legal Document Assistant, LDA-385, pursuant to Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Section 6400 et.seq.  The writer of this e mail is not an
attorney.  Nothing herein is intended as legal advice.  If you need
legal advice or representation, you should consult with an attorney.

 

On Apr 12, 2011, at 10:55 PM, vanessa
ting wrote:

Hi --

 

You are up late as well!

 

I've submitted the payment of $126
just now.  Thanks!! 

 

Vanessa

 

On 4/12/2011 10:52 PM,
Santa Monica Observer wrote:

Hi, Vanessa, you're up
late!

Thank you for your DBA
submittal, which is below.  Please look it over for accuracy, and let us
know if your information is correct.

 

Please use the
"BuyNow" button on our website to submit payment of $126.  www.smobserver.com.  Any major credit card (Visa, MC, Amex)
is acceptable.  If you've already paid, thank you for your payment.

 

After your reply, we will
set up the form for your DBA, sign it, and file it for you with the LA County
Recorder.  We will then publish it 4 times, and submit a proof of
publication.  You will receive copies of your DBA and Proof of
Publication.

  

David
Ganezer, Publisher

Santa Monica Observer
Newspaper

1844 Lincoln Blvd

Santa Monica, CA 90404

 

Tel:  (310) 452-9900

Fax:  (310) 388-1235

 

Editor@smobserver.com

 

The writer of this e mail
is a licensed Los Angeles County Legal Document Assistant, LDA-385, pursuant to
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6400 et.seq.  The writer of this e mail
is not an attorney.  Nothing herein is intended as legal advice.  If
you need legal advice or representation, you should consult with an attorney.

Name Vanessa Ting 

 

Name of business Retail Path 

 

Second choice of business Retail Path Consulting 

 

Business started at April 7 2011 

 

Street address 10626 Holman Ave, Suite 3A 

 

Receive email Los Angeles, CA 90024 

 

Corporation? LLC? or Sole
Proprietor? Individual 

 

Telephone Number 818-350-3291 

 

Email ID vtstrategist@gmail.com 

 

Comments or Questions NO 



Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Author of original report

Update with further details

AUTHOR: Vanessa - (United States of America)

The link to my blog with more details was redacted (I didn't know the policy) so here is that content referenced in my earlier report:

Overview:  The Santa Monica Observer (SMO) offers online DBA filing as one of its revenue streams.  However, in my experience they are not reliable nor find customer satisfaction important.  Buyer beware.  Do not use them for DBA filing.  See below for details.

Email to Santa Monica Observer General Counsel, dated 7/21/2011:

Dear Mr. Telanoff,

Please help mediate a dispute between the Santa Monica Observer/David Ganezer and myself.

On or around April 11, 2011, I purchased a DBA service on the Santa Monica Observer's website for $126.00 and paid with my American Express.

On or around June 2, I received my American Express statement and saw the charge "Santa Monica-Paypal" for $126.00.  At the time, I did not connect that "Santa Monica-Paypal" was actually "Santa Monica Observer".  Since I had submitted my payment online using my American Express, it never occurred to me to expect a charge from "Paypal" on my credit card statement.  To that end, I disputed the charge.

A few days later, David Ganezer emailed me to ask why I disputed the charge.  When I realized the connection, I immediately phoned American Express to cancel the dispute.  I followed up and this cancellation was completed successfully; American Express delivered the funds in the amount of
$126.00 to Paypal and I paid American Express the full amount.

On June 21, 2011, David informed me that he still had not been paid.  That same day I called American Express to verify funds were sent (it was confirmed) and on June 22, I called Paypal to confirm they received the funds.  Paypal confirmed they received the funds. I was told by Paypal that it is customary for them to hold funds after a dispute and that it will be held for a certain [unknown to me] amount of time before being released to the SM Observer.  Paypal also said this was in the user agreements accepted by the SM Observer when the SM Observer set up the Paypal account.  Paypal volunteered to email the agreement to David Ganezer as a reminder.

I communicated all of my efforts, attempts, and the information I collected with David.  He shared no communication that suggested he was trying to resolve this on his end.

On July 21, 2011 (today), David AGAIN informed me that he/SM Observer still has not been paid.  I called Paypal the same day to get an update on the situation.  After talking with 2 departments, it was determined the Chargeback Department of Paypal will need to assist me.  However, they
were closed for the day.  I will have to call on July 22.

I have made many good faith attempts to help resolve this situation - and have communicated them all to David.  Meanwhile, I have not received any proof of publication or paperwork that is expected upon the SM Observer's filling of my DBA paperwork.  It has been over 3 months since the paperwork was filed.  David Ganezer's follow-through on my DBA inquiries have been inconsistent and minimal, at  best.  He is evasive of my inquiries for a status update on my DBA.  And he has not made any good  faith attempts to resolve the monetary dispute - or at least ignores my pleas for him to help.  I have asked him to call Paypal many times to expedite their release of his funds and he has not indicated that he has done so.  Meanwhile, I have called Paypal twice and plan to call again tomorrow.

After Internet research and seeing the lawsuits brought against him in situations similar to the above - as well as his California Bar suspension for ethical violations - I fear I may not ever receive fulfillment of the services I have, in good faith, purchased from the SM Observer.

As the general counsel for the SM Observer, are you able to help resolve this situation?  At the end of  the day, I want him to get paid the full amount and I want to receive my completed DBA.

As far as I know, I have paid him already as $126.00 has left my bank account.  The funds sits at Paypal, which is a provider SM Observer has contracted with.  Meanwhile, he will not provide any updates on the status of my DBA filing.  Please advise him to make call Paypal and straighten this out himself - and to perform his duties as my service provider for a DBA.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
VT

Response from Mr. Adam Telanoff

Attempt #1:  No response via email.

Attempt #2:  To help resolve the situation, I asked a good friend (an attorney) for help.  Her firm phoned Mr. Adam Telanoff and explained the situation.   His response was, and I paraphrase, "A $126 dispute is not worth my time to resolve."  It was pointed out to him that in the name of good customer service, it should be worth it.  He disagreed.  It was pointed out to him that Paypal was Santa Monica Observer's service provider and that VT (me) had no influence on Paypal's actions and that only SMO could resolve the situation.  Mr. Telanoff didn't care.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory
noticed