Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:23:42 (UTC).

ESOS RINGS INC VS JOSEPH PRENCIPE ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/27/2017 ESOS RINGS INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOSEPH PRENCIPE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOSEPH R. KALIN, MEL RED RECANA and MALCOLM MACKEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2020

  • Filing Date:

    02/27/2017

  • 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 Judges

JOSEPH R. KALIN

MEL RED RECANA

MALCOLM MACKEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

ESOS RINGS INC.

MCLEAR LTD.

SILVERSTEIN MICHELLE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

PRENCIPE JOSEPH

MCLEAR & CO.

MTG CO.

MTG CO. A JAPANESE JOINT STOCK CORPORATION

Not Classified By Court

ANNA AFANASYEVA

MCLEAR LTD.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MINTZ LEVINE

WAGNER BENJAMIN LEWIS

SKALE ANDREW DAVID

NAHAMA JUSTIN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LARSON STEPHEN GERARD ESQ.

FISET RACHEL L.

HARFORD DAVID LOUIS

DUERINGER CHRISTOPHER L.

LARSON STEPHEN G.

Cross Defendant Attorney

HRUTKAY MATTHEW

 

Court Documents

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE THE DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

9/7/2018: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE THE DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

Opposition

10/15/2018: Opposition

Objection

1/15/2019: Objection

Notice

3/4/2019: Notice

Certificate of Mailing for

4/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Motion to Quash

5/2/2019: Motion to Quash

Notice of Joinder

5/3/2019: Notice of Joinder

Declaration

5/20/2019: Declaration

Reply

6/14/2019: Reply

Proof of Service

1/2/2018: Proof of Service

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ESOS RINGS, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOSEPH PRENCIPE'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

4/6/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ESOS RINGS, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOSEPH PRENCIPE'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

MCLEAR & CO'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PREVENTING CROSS-DEFENDANTS BASELESS CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP TO THE '609 PATENT; ETC

6/15/2017: MCLEAR & CO'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PREVENTING CROSS-DEFENDANTS BASELESS CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP TO THE '609 PATENT; ETC

Minute Order

6/15/2017: Minute Order

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MICHELLE SILVERSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ETC

6/15/2017: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MICHELLE SILVERSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ETC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES AND STAY DEPOSITIONS OF (1) MICHELLE SILVERSTEIN AND (2) REX SCATES AND FOR SANCTIONS

8/4/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES AND STAY DEPOSITIONS OF (1) MICHELLE SILVERSTEIN AND (2) REX SCATES AND FOR SANCTIONS

PROOF OF SERVICE

9/7/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY S. FOX IN SUPPORT OF MCLEAR & CO. AND JOSEPH PRENCIPE'S OPPOSITION TO ESOS RINGS, INC. AND MICHELLE SILVERSTEIN'S MOTION TO QUASH AND STAY DEPOSITIONS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

11/30/2017: DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY S. FOX IN SUPPORT OF MCLEAR & CO. AND JOSEPH PRENCIPE'S OPPOSITION TO ESOS RINGS, INC. AND MICHELLE SILVERSTEIN'S MOTION TO QUASH AND STAY DEPOSITIONS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES AND ETC.

12/6/2017: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES AND ETC.

352 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/11/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Seal (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 45 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
600 More Docket Entries
  • 02/28/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF MICHELLE SILVERSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PREVENTING UNLAWFUL USE OF AND DIMINISHING VALUE OF PATENT RIGHTS AND (2) FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF BEN L. WAGNER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PREVENTING UNLAWFUL USE OF AND DIMINISHING VALUE OF PATENT RIGHTS AND (2) FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-02-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PREVENTING UNLAWFUL USE OF AND DIMINISHING VALUE OF PATENT RIGHTS AND (2) FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF TIMOTHY FOX IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2017
  • DocketPLAIRFLIFF ESOS RINGS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, DECLARATORY RELIEF, QUIET TITLE, FRAUDULENT TRANSFER, FRAUD, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Esos Rings, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC652020    Hearing Date: April 27, 2021    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

ESOS RINGS, INC.,

vs.

JOSEPH PRENCIPE, et al.

Case No.: BC652020

Hearing Date: April 27, 2021

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Esos Rings, Inc. and Cross-Defendant Michelle Silverstein’s motion for ruling on objections is continued to June 4, 2021. The parties are ordered to lodge courtesy copies in Department 71 as set forth in the ruling by May 10, 2021.

McLear’s request that the Court order the deposition of Silverstein is premature.

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Esos Rings, Inc. (“Esos”) and Cross-Defendant Michelle Silverstein (“Silverstein”) (collectively, “Esos Parties”) move for an order ruling on five previously filed objections to the Discovery Referee’s rulings on the following four discovery motions: (1) the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Anna Afanasyeva (“Afanasyeva”) [6/5/20 objection]; (2) the Motion to Compel First Request for Production (“RFP”) (re: alter ego discovery) as to Esos filed by McLear Ltd. [7/28/20 objection and 8/3/20 supplemental objection to 6/10/20 Final Ruling]; (3) Esos’s Motions to Quash three subpoenas issued to Hyperloop Technologies, Inc. (“Hyperloop”) by Defendant Joseph Prencipe (“Prencipe”), AirSlate, Inc. (“AirSlate”) by Prencipe, and Sunrise Banks by Defendant McLear & Co. [8/17/20 objections]; and (4) the Motion that Esos Answer Nine Additional RFPs filed by McLear UK [9/4/20 objections]. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §643(c).) In opposition, McLear requests the Court overrule Plaintiff’s objections, enter each of the Referee’s rulings as formal orders of the Court, and order Silverstein to sit for subsequent deposition. (Opposition, pg. 11.)

The instant motion was filed on January 21, 2021, with a hearing date set for March 2, 2021, in Department 45. On February 16, 2021, Defendants McLear Ltd. and McLear & Co., Inc. (collectively, “McLear”) filed an opposition to the motion. On February 17, 2021, Prencipe filed a Notice of Joinder and Joinder in McLear’s opposition. On February 17, 2021, Afanasyeva filed an opposition. On February 23, 2021, Esos Parties filed a reply. However, on March 1, 2021, prior to the March 2, 2021 hearing date, the case was reassigned from Department 45 to Department 71, and all matters on calendar in the case were ordered advanced to March 1, 2021, vacated, and to be rescheduled in the newly assigned Department 71. It appears the instant motion was scheduled for April 14, 2021; however, on March 18, 2021, the Court noted the motion would be rescheduled by the Court. At the April 5, 2021 Case Management Conference (“CMC”) the Court continued the hearing on the instant motion to April 27, 2021.

The Court notes that on March 1, 2021, Esos filed a sixth objection to a Discovery Referee ruling. Specifically, Esos filed an objection to the Discovery Referee’s February 18, 2021 Ruling on the Motion to Quash and Stay Compliance with Third-Party Subpoenas [Hyatt, NHL, Caesars, Sands] and on Sundry Matters argued on February 16, 2021. (Objection, pg. 2; 2/19/21 Notice of Ruling, Exh. A.) This objection did not have an associated motion for ruling, reservation number, or hearing date, and Esos has not filed a new motion in connection with this objection. It appears no response to the objection was filed within 10 days of its filing. However, on April 14, 2021, McLear & Co. filed an opposition to the objection, and on April 20, 2021, Esos Parties filed a reply to the opposition, in which Esos Parties list April 27, 2021 as the hearing date. The Court will consider this sixth objection along with the five objections that are subject to the instant motion on the date of the continued hearing.

Esos Parties’ motion for a ruling on the objections is continued. In support of their motion, Esos Parties filed the Declaration of Ben Wagner (“Wagner”), which attaches copies of: (1) objections by Esos and/or Esos Parties to the Discovery Referee rulings; and (2) responses, oppositions, and/or joinders thereto to the objections to the rulings. (Decl. of Wagner ¶¶3-14, Exhs. B-M.) However, Esos Parties have not submitted the underlying Discovery Referee rulings to which the objections are asserted, or the papers filed in connection with those motions that were considered by the Discovery Referee.

The Court orders the parties to jointly organize and file with the Court courtesy copies of the current motion and objection, oppositions and replies, and each of the underlying Discovery Referee rulings that are in dispute as well as the motions, oppositions, replies, and supporting declarations considered by the Discovery Referee in ruling on the underlying motions to which Esos Parties have objected. Given the voluminous number of documents involved by reference in this motion, for the Court to assemble and review all the documents electronically would require an undue consumption of time and resources. As such, for each of the six objections for which Esos Parties move for the Court to issue a ruling, the parties are directed to jointly prepare and provide the Court with courtesy copies of: (1) the current filings (the motion, the objection), any responses and replies; (3) the underlying rulings; and (4) the motions, oppositions, replies, and any supporting papers considered by the Discovery Referee in issuing the underlying rulings. The materials should be organized in a reasonable manner, indexed, and tabbed.

The Court notes in opposition, McLear argues it is appropriate for the Court to order Silverstein to immediately testify regarding her alleged destruction of evidence. (Opposition, pg. 10.) However, this request is premature, as the issue of whether Silverstein should be compelled to testify must first be addressed by the Discovery Referee.

Dated: April _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court