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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
VAN DYKE ADAM
DOES 1 TO 50
H3T1 CONSULTING GROUP INC.
ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS INC.
GRANT GENOVESE & BARATTA LLP
KAPLAN JESSE A.
HAN STEVEN Y. ESQ.
LEVINE PAUL SAMUEL
7/15/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF SCHEDULING ON HEARING OF HENRY LIANG'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS
7/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/07/2020
7/9/2020: Objection - OBJECTION TO ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS, INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF RULING
6/30/2020: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
7/1/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF STEVEN HAN ISO 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
7/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)
3/22/2019: Notice of Related Case
9/20/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
12/11/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
12/11/2018: Notice of Ruling
10/25/2018: Notice of Entry of Judgment
9/26/2018: Minute Order -
9/27/2018: NOMINAL DEFENDANT ZEN PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISORS, INC.?S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DERIVATIVE AND DIRECT CLAIMS)
9/12/2018: DEFENDANTS HENRY LIANG AND H3T1 CONSULTING GROUP'S COMBINED NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/5/2018: NOTICE OF SECOND CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
8/24/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING
8/29/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
Hearing11/30/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing11/22/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing09/22/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Henry Liang (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to From Interrogatories) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Special Interrogatories) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Production - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - HeldRead MoreRead Less
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 ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogator...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Adam Van Dyke (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Adam Van Dyke (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVILRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Adam Van Dyke (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
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.
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.
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.