This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 05:30:21 (UTC).

ADAM VAN DYKE VS HENRY LIANG ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/14/2018 ADAM VAN DYKE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HENRY LIANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6127

  • Filing Date:

    05/14/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY KEOSIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VAN DYKE ADAM

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 TO 50

H3T1 CONSULTING GROUP INC.

LIANG HENRY

ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS INC.

DEUTSCH STEVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GRANT GENOVESE & BARATTA LLP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KAPLAN JESSE A.

HAN STEVEN Y. ESQ.

HAN STEVEN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

HAN STEVEN

Cross Defendant Attorney

LEVINE PAUL SAMUEL

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF SCHEDULING ON HEARING OF HENRY LIANG'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS

7/15/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF SCHEDULING ON HEARING OF HENRY LIANG'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/07/2020

7/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/07/2020

Objection - OBJECTION TO ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS, INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF RULING

7/9/2020: Objection - OBJECTION TO ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS, INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF RULING

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

6/30/2020: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Declaration - DECLARATION OF STEVEN HAN ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST STEVE DEUTSCH

7/1/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF STEVEN HAN ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST STEVE DEUTSCH

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST STEVE DEUTSCH

7/1/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST STEVE DEUTSCH

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

7/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Notice of Related Case

3/22/2019: Notice of Related Case

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

9/20/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

12/11/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice of Ruling

12/11/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Entry of Judgment

10/25/2018: Notice of Entry of Judgment

Minute Order -

9/26/2018: Minute Order -

NOMINAL DEFENDANT ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS, INC.?S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DERIVATIVE AND DIRECT CLAIMS)

9/27/2018: NOMINAL DEFENDANT ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS, INC.?S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DERIVATIVE AND DIRECT CLAIMS)

DEFENDANTS HENRY LIANG AND H3T1 CONSULTING GROUP'S COMBINED NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/12/2018: DEFENDANTS HENRY LIANG AND H3T1 CONSULTING GROUP'S COMBINED NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF SECOND CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/5/2018: NOTICE OF SECOND CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

8/24/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

8/29/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/30/2021
  • Hearing11/30/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2021
  • Hearing11/22/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • Hearing09/22/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Henry Liang (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to From Interrogatories) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Special Interrogatories) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Production - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (Ruling Re Cross Complainant Henry Liang's Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Set One, and Motions to Deem Matters Admitted Against Cross-Defendant Steve Deutsch); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogator...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
113 More Docket Entries
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Adam Van Dyke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Adam Van Dyke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Adam Van Dyke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC706127    Hearing Date: September 09, 2020    Dept: 61

Cross-complainant Henry Liang’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Set One, from Cross-Defendant Steve Deutsch are GRANTED, and sanctions are awarded against Deutsch in the amount of $1,155. 30 days to provide responses. The motion to deem admitted is DENIED.

  1. MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND DEEM ADMITTED

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Likewise, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (b).)

A party who fails to timely respond to requests for admission waives all objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court must grant a motion to deem matters admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Liang argues that he served requests for production, requests for admission, and form and special interrogatories upon Cross-Defendant Steve Deutsch on March 24, 2020, and that he has received no responses. (Motion at p. 3.) Liang has subsequently represented to the court that responses to the requests for admission have been served.

The motion to deem admitted is DENIED, as responses have been served. If responses to the form and special interrogatories and requests for production are not served by the date of hearing on these motions, they will be GRANTED.

  1. SANCTIONS

The prevailing party on a motion to compel is generally entitled to monetary sanctions, unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Liang asks for $385.00 in sanctions for each of his motions to compel (for a total of $1,155.00) and $872.50 in sanctions for his motion to deem admitted. The court awards sanctions against Deutsch in the amount of $1,155.

Cross-complainant to provide notice.

Case Number: BC706127    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: 61

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) section 284 states that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination” upon either consent of both client and attorney, or upon the order of the court under application of either the client of the attorney, after notice from one to the other. Cal. Rule of Court 3.1362 states the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284. No memorandum is required, but the motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration stating why a motion has been brought instead of filing a consent (without compromising attorney-client confidentiality), (2) proof of service of the motion, and (3) all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if know. Additionally, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers.”

The present motions pertain to attorney Paul S. Levine, counsel for Cross-Defendant Steve Deutsch. The motion does not include a proof of service. A proof of service was filed indicating that electronic service was made upon Steven Yun Sik Han, counsel for opposing parties, not Levine’s own client.

Attorney Paul S. Levine’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Cross-Defendant Deutsch is DENIED.