Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/26/2021 at 20:45:49 (UTC).

MARK KOLOKOTRONES ET AL VS NINJA METRICS INC ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9689

  • Filing Date:

    02/08/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business Governance

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JAMES C. CHALFANT

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

KNIGHT AND BISHOP L.P.

KOLOKOTRONES MARK

KNIGHT AND BISHOP LP

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

WILLIAMS DMITRI

HAWK ROBERT

NINA METRICS INC.

KAMINSKY ROBIN

PIKOVER YURI

37 TECHNOLOGY VENTURES LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

NINJA METRICS INC.

BOGEN STEWART L.-TRUSTEE OF THE BOGEN

BOGEN STEWART L.

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant Attorneys

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

FEINSTEIN MARC FORREST

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GRANT ADAM D.H. ESQ.

ALPERT BARR & GRANT APLC

GELFAND MATTHEW

SWARTZ MICHAEL H.

KWONG JEFFREY SAI-KID

GRANT ADAM DOUGLAS

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

ALPERT BARR & GRANT APLC

 

Court Documents

1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/23/2016: 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS'/CROSSCOMPLAINANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MARK KOLOKOTRONES

7/15/2016: NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS'/CROSSCOMPLAINANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MARK KOLOKOTRONES

Substitution of Attorney

1/29/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; HEARING ON MO...)

8/19/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; HEARING ON MO...)

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

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

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/12/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order -

9/18/2018: Minute Order -

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

2/17/2016: 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

DECLARATION OF BRITTANY ROGERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

2/26/2016: DECLARATION OF BRITTANY ROGERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

Minute Order -

8/10/2016: Minute Order -

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE OF ROBERT HAWK AT DEPOSITION

8/31/2016: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE OF ROBERT HAWK AT DEPOSITION

Minute Order -

11/2/2016: Minute Order -

DECLARATION OF MARK KOLOKOTRONES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

1/31/2017: DECLARATION OF MARK KOLOKOTRONES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. MCCARTHY 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

Minute Order -

3/29/2017: Minute Order -

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER OF THE DISCOVERY REFEREE RE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL OR DISCOVERY EVENDOR

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

PROOF OF SERVICE

9/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE

Minute Order -

9/18/2017: Minute Order -

377 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/20/2021
  • Hearing09/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • 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 Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Michael H. Swartz (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Michael H. Swartz (Attorney); Dmitri Williams (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Dmitri Williams (Defendant); Yuri Pikover (Defendant); Robert Hawk (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2021
  • DocketNotice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy); Filed by 37 Technology Ventures, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Michael H. Swartz (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketMotion to Amend Judgment; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
779 More Docket Entries
  • 02/17/2016
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2016
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2016
  • DocketProof-Personal Service; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2016
  • DocketEx-parte Request for Order; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF LODGING COMPLAINT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Mark Kolokotrones (Plaintiff); Knight and Bishop, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT PLAINTIFF KOLOKOTRONES REMAINS A COMPANY DIRECTOR AND THE BOARD'S WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF HIM RENDERS ITS ACTIONS INVALID; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC609689    Hearing Date: May 6, 2021    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Mark kolokotrones, et al.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ninja metrics, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC609689

Hearing Date:

May 6, 2021

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[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

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

MARK KOLOKOTRONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NINJA METRICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

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

SEAL;

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION

AWARD

Background

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:

  1. Marc Feinstein (partner) – 11.3 hours - $1,195 per hour

  2. 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.

Conclusion

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

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant