On 02/08/2016 MARK KOLOKOTRONES filed a Contract - Business Governance lawsuit against NINJA METRICS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JAMES C. CHALFANT and TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES C. CHALFANT
TERESA A. BEAUDET
KNIGHT AND BISHOP L.P.
KNIGHT AND BISHOP LP
NINA METRICS INC.
37 TECHNOLOGY VENTURES LLC
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
NINJA METRICS INC.
BOGEN STEWART L.-TRUSTEE OF THE BOGEN
BOGEN STEWART L.
TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
FEINSTEIN MARC FORREST
GRANT ADAM D.H. ESQ.
ALPERT BARR & GRANT APLC
SWARTZ MICHAEL H.
KWONG JEFFREY SAI-KID
GRANT ADAM DOUGLAS
ALPERT BARR & GRANT APLC
3/23/2016: 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7/15/2016: NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS'/CROSSCOMPLAINANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MARK KOLOKOTRONES
1/29/2020: Substitution of Attorney
8/19/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; HEARING ON MO...)
8/28/2020: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF KNIGHT AND BISHOP, L.P.S (1) MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS LODGED CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL; AND (2) PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
4/12/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/18/2018: Minute Order -
2/17/2016: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ORDER FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THER
2/26/2016: DECLARATION OF BRITTANY ROGERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
8/10/2016: Minute Order -
8/31/2016: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE OF ROBERT HAWK AT DEPOSITION
11/2/2016: Minute Order -
1/31/2017: DECLARATION OF MARK KOLOKOTRONES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1/31/2017: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3/29/2017: Minute Order -
4/3/2017: DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER OF THE DISCOVERY REFEREE RE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL OR DISCOVERY EVENDOR
9/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE
9/18/2017: Minute Order -
Hearing09/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
Hearing05/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as CounselRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Michael H. Swartz (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Michael H. Swartz (Attorney); Dmitri Williams (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Dmitri Williams (Defendant); Yuri Pikover (Defendant); Robert Hawk (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy); Filed by 37 Technology Ventures, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Michael H. Swartz (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Amend Judgment; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Personal Service; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketEx-parte Request for Order; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF LODGING COMPLAINT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEALRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT PLAINTIFF KOLOKOTRONES REMAINS A COMPANY DIRECTOR AND THE BOARD'S WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF HIM RENDERS ITS ACTIONS INVALID; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC609689 Hearing Date: May 6, 2021 Dept: 50
Mark kolokotrones, et al.,
ninja metrics, et al.,
May 6, 2021
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Michael H. Swartz, attorney for Defendants, 37 Technology Ventures LLC, Yuri Pikover, Dmitri Williams, and Robert Hawk (“Defendants”) moves to be relieved as Defendants’ counsel.
A review of the documents submitted in support of the Motion reveals that Mr. Swartz failed to lodge and serve with his moving papers completed form MC-053 (Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil), as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1362(e). Mr. Swartz served a blank form of proposed order for limited scope representation.
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Swartz Motion will be continued to a date to be discussed at the hearing.
Mr. Swartz is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.
DATED: May 6, 2021
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number: BC609689 Hearing Date: August 19, 2020 Dept: 50
MARK KOLOKOTRONES, et al.,
NINJA METRICS, INC., et al.,
Case No.: BC 609689
Hearing Date: August 19, 2020
Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
[tentative] order RE:
PLAINTIFF KNIGHT AND BISHOP, L.P’S
motion to seal DOCUMENTS
LODGED CONDITIONALLY UNDER
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION
Plaintiff and Petitioner Knight and Bishop, L.P. (“Petitioner”) moves the Court to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2020. (Pet., ¶ 8.) The petition was filed on July 1, 2020 and served on Respondents Robert Hawk, 37 Technology Ventures, LLC, and Dmitri Williams (collectively, “Respondents”) on the same day. Respondents and Defendant Yuri Pikover (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose.
Petitioner also moves to file the petition to confirm arbitration award and certain supporting documents under seal. The motion to seal is unopposed.
Motion to Seal
Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)
Petitioner contends that the petition to confirm arbitration award, the memorandum of points and authorities in support, and the Declaration of Marc F. Feinstein contain confidential information that is appropriately filed under seal. Petitioner asserts that the parties agreed to keep certain information concerning the arbitration confidential, as set forth in the arbitration agreement. In particular, the parties agreed that “[t]he arbitration proceedings and arbitration award shall be maintained by the Parties as strictly confidential, except as is otherwise required by court order or as is reasonably necessary to confirm, correct, vacate or enforce the award.” (Zhong Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A, § 17(d).)
Courts have found that enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose “can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d) [currently CRC 2.550].” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (Unity Pictures Corp.) (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) However, in ordering records sealed, the court must also find a substantial probability that the parties would be prejudiced absent sealing. (Id. at pp. 1283-1284.) Petitioner argues that the parties would suffer harm and injury to their privacy rights through revelation of the confidential financial, personal, and business information that was subject to the confidentiality agreement in their arbitration proceedings, and it would promote alternative dispute resolutions such as arbitration.. The Court finds that such a showing has been made with some minor exceptions: The name of the arbitrator in paragraph 6, the dates of the arbitration in paragraph 7, the date of the award in paragraph 8, the identity of the respondent as the party to pay the award in paragraph 8, the date of service of the award in paragraph 9 a and b, and the date for the start of interest in paragraph 10 d. The remaining information redacted from the publicly filed versions of the documents at issue, contain financial and business information. Thus, the Court finds that there is a substantial probability that the parties will be prejudiced absent sealing.
Accordingly, the motion to seal is granted as modified.
The Court orders Petitioner to file versions of the documents with the information noted above unredacted within 3 days of the date of this Order.
Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award
“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to
confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “A petition under this chapter shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made…unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) Any response to the petition is required to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)
The Court finds that Petitioner has established that the the above requirements have been met. And as noted by Petitioner, “[i]f [an] award is confirmed, judgment must be entered in conformity therewith.” (Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.)
Defendants oppose on the ground that the parties’ underlying arbitration agreement requires Petitioner to dismiss all claims against Defendants with prejudice once payment of a portion of the arbitral award is made. (Pet., ¶ 4, Ex. 4(b), § 8 [“When the releases in Section 10 become effective including timely satisfaction of the Payment Condition, Plaintiffs shall dismiss their claims against Defendants with prejudice.”].) Defendants submit evidence that such payment was made on July 9, 2020. (Swartz Decl., ¶ 3; see also Pet., ¶ 4, Ex. 4(b), § 10 [payment of $1.125 million within 90 days of the issuance of the Arbitrator’s Final Decision satisfies the Payment Condition].) Therefore, Defendants argue that Petitioner is not entitled to confirmation of the award or entry of judgment, and that the only avenue available for Petitioner is to file a petition to confirm the award as a separate, independent proceeding.
The Court notes that Defendants offer no controlling authority for their position, nor do Defendants acknowledge Code of Civil Procedure section 1285. “[W]here an arbitration award has been made, the superior court is limited in the extent of the relief it may grant. It may confirm the award as made or correct the award and confirm it as corrected, or it may vacate the award.” (Jones v. Kvistad, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at p. 840.) Here, Defendants have not advanced any argument for vacating or correcting the award. Therefore, the Court finds that, because Petitioner has met the procedural requirements for confirmation of the award, Petitioner is entitled to such confirmation.
Defendants next argue that the requested judgment amount is inflated because the award was not issued on March 31, 2020 but on April 15, 2020, and therefore, interest should accrue only from April 15, 2020. But as Petitioner points out, the award is dated March 31, 2020, and according to the final award, “[i]nterest on the unpaid amount of the award in the Final Decision shall accrue at a simple rate of ten percent (10%) per annum running from the date of the Final Decision.” (Pet., ¶ 8, Ex. 8(c), p. 21.) Therefore, the Court finds that interest started to accrue on March 31, 2020.
Defendants also point out that the judgment should reflect Defendants’ payment of $1.125 million, and Petitioner agrees. Petitioner submitted a revised proposed judgment reflecting this payment.
Lastly, in Petitioner’s reply, Petitioner requests an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in connection with enforcing the final award. The arbitration agreement provides that “[t]he prevailing party in any  action [or proceeding to enforce this Agreement], in addition to or including any action or proceeding arising from, or related to enforcement of, the Final Decision, shall be entitled to payment of its attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Pet., ¶ 4, Ex. 4(b), § 13.)
Petitioner seeks a total of $65,086 in attorney fees and $1,513.37 in costs. (Feinstein Decl.-Reply, ¶ 3.) The fees comprise the hours spent in researching and drafting the petition and supporting documents, preparing the motion to seal, reviewing the opposition to the petition, and preparing the reply papers, as set forth below:
Marc Feinstein (partner) – 11.3 hours - $1,195 per hour
Grace Zhong (associate) – 69.5 hours - $725 per hour
Petitioner also seeks $1,513.37 in costs associated with electronic research and text editing. The Court notes that Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to this request. Therefore, the Court has not yet decided whether the requested fees and costs are reasonable, although the Court does decide that fees and costs are recoverable.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. The Court further grants Petitioner’s request for an award of attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $______________.
Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of this Order.
DATED: August 19, 2020
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases