This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/03/2020 at 02:26:58 (UTC).

GEORGE ZAKK VS ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/08/2018 GEORGE ZAKK filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS 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 JOHN P. DOYLE, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB, STEPHANIE M. BOWICK, JOSEPH R. KALIN, MICHAEL L. STERN, DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9424

  • Filing Date:

    01/08/2018

  • 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 Judges

JOHN P. DOYLE

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

STEPHANIE M. BOWICK

JOSEPH R. KALIN

MICHAEL L. STERN

DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ZAKK GEORGE

Defendants, Respondents and Not Classified By Court

ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS INC

REVOLUTION FILMS

DOES 1 TO 20

VIN DIESEL

VINCENT MARK

REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC

FILMS REVOLUTION

DIESEL VIN

VINCENT MARK DBA VIN DIESEL

ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS INC.

REVOLUTION STUDIOS A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

ONE RACE FILMS INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BARAB MARTIN J. ESQ.

BARAB MARTIN JOHN

BARAB MARTIN J.

HAMRICK RAYMOND A.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP

FREEDMAN BRYAN J. ESQ.

GATTI JOHN MICHAEL

FREEDMAN BRYAN JOEL

FREEDMAN BRYAN J.

GATTI JOHN M.

 

Court Documents

Response - RESPONSE PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKKS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT REVOLUTION STUDIOS REQUEST FOR AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

7/30/2020: Response - RESPONSE PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKKS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT REVOLUTION STUDIOS REQUEST FOR AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JONATHAN DUTTON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKKS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT REVOLUTION STUDIOS REQUEST FOR AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

7/30/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JONATHAN DUTTON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKKS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT REVOLUTION STUDIOS REQUEST FOR AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

8/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Brief - BRIEF PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S BRIEF RE RIGHT TO BRING PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM

10/25/2019: Brief - BRIEF PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S BRIEF RE RIGHT TO BRING PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM

Case Management Order

10/30/2019: Case Management Order

DEFENDANTS MARK VINCENT AND ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX P4RTE APPLICATION

7/26/2018: DEFENDANTS MARK VINCENT AND ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX P4RTE APPLICATION

DECLARATION OF SEAN M. HARDY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND VIN DIESEL'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

8/20/2018: DECLARATION OF SEAN M. HARDY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND VIN DIESEL'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S BRIEF RE: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE COURT'S JUNE 8, 2018 ORDER RE: ALTERNATIVE WRIT

6/15/2018: PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S BRIEF RE: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE COURT'S JUNE 8, 2018 ORDER RE: ALTERNATIVE WRIT

Minute Order -

6/21/2018: Minute Order -

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

4/3/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK?S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ZAKK'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STRIKING AND DENYING ZAKK'S PER

4/3/2018: PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK?S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ZAKK'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STRIKING AND DENYING ZAKK'S PER

Minute Order -

4/12/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

4/19/2018: Minute Order -

DEFENDANTS ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND VIN DIESEL'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

4/11/2018: DEFENDANTS ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND VIN DIESEL'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S COMPLAINT

3/20/2018: DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF KATRINA DELA CRUZ PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 430.41 REGARDING DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER BEFORE DEMURRING

3/20/2018: DECLARATION OF KATRINA DELA CRUZ PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 430.41 REGARDING DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER BEFORE DEMURRING

DECLARATION OF KATRINA DELA CRUZ PURSUANT TO C.C.P. ? 435.5 REGARDING DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER BEFORE FILING MOTION TO STRIKE

2/22/2018: DECLARATION OF KATRINA DELA CRUZ PURSUANT TO C.C.P. ? 435.5 REGARDING DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER BEFORE FILING MOTION TO STRIKE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

145 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/23/2021
  • Hearing02/23/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2021
  • Hearing02/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • Hearing11/10/2020 at 11:00 AM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • Docketat 3:00 PM in Department 78; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • Docketat 3:00 PM in Department 78; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 78; Jury Trial (, 5-7 day estimate,) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL (- notice dated 8/19/2020 addressed to Atty Martin J. Barab of Hamrick & Evans LLP); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE); Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order (- IDC); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
260 More Docket Entries
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC689424    Hearing Date: October 30, 2019    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

GEORGE ZAKK;

Plaintiff,

vs.

ONE RACE PRODUCTION INC., et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

Related Case:

BC689424

BC619933

Hearing Date:

October 30, 2019

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

defendant revolution production services, llc’s supplemental breif regarding plaintiff George zakk’s proposed first amended complaint

Plaintiff George Zakk’s request to include a cause of action promissory estoppel in the consolidated complaint in these two related actions is GRANTED.

Factual Background

The two related actions subject to this motion are BC619933 and BC689424. Plaintiff George Zakk (“Zakk”) filed the original Complaint in BC619933on May 10, 2016. The complaint alleged four causes of action:

  1. Breach of contract

  2. Breach of implied-in-fact contract

  3. Declaratory relief

  4. Intentional interference with contractual relations.

After orders sustaining a series of demurrers with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding a Fifth Cause of Action for Quantum Meruit and a Sixth Cause of Action for Promissory Estoppel. The Court sustained thedemurrer to the Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend on the grounds that the complaint was barred by the Statute of Frauds. As to the new Promissory Estoppel Cause of action, the ruling was also based on the fact that Zakk was attempting to add a new cause of action and new parties and this was improper because Zakk had not sought leave of Court to file that amendment.

On April 14, 2017 Zakk appealed that ruling.

On January 8, 2018, while the appeal in BC619933 was pending, Zakk filed the Complaint in BC689424. The complaint alleged the same six causes of action as alleged the Third Amended Complaint in BC619933 against the “new” parties who plaintiff had attempted to add in the Third Amended Complaint in BC619933.

On March 7, 2018, the Court in previously assigned Dept. 58 found that BC689424 and BC619933 are Related Cases.

On July 17, 2018, the Court of Appeal ordered that the BC689424 is a “continuation” of BC619933 because it “effectively avoids Judge Doyle’s striking of the Doe amendments in the earlier case, which ruling is currently on appeal in BC619933.”

On March 22, 2018 One Race/Diesel and Revolution each filed a demurrer to and a Motion to Strike the Complaint in BC689424. On August 10, 2018, Judge Kalin in Dept. 58 overruled the demurrers and denied the Motions to Strike on the grounds that the defendants in BC619933 are Vin Diesel (Mark Vincent), One Race Films, Inc., and Revolution Studios, while the defendants in BC689424 are Mark Vincent, One Race Productions, Inc., and Revolution Films. Accordingly, Judge Kalin held that the parties are not the same. Additionally, Judge Kalin overruled the demurrers and motions to strike, including the demurrers and motions to strike as to the Promissory Estoppel Cause of Action, on the merits.

On May 28, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur with its opinion in BC619933. That opinion overruled the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the Statute of Frauds was not a bar to the action. It affirmed Judge Doyle’s ruling with respect to the Promissory Estoppel Cause of Action because it found that this ruling was within Judge Doyle’s discretion.

On August 9, 2019, this Court ordered counsel to meet and confer regarding which complaint, whether the existing complaints in BC619933 or BC689424 or as consolidated complaint, will be the operative pleading. On September 11, 2019, this Court ordered counsel to meet and confer and submit a consolidated complaint.

On October 25, 2019, both Revolution Production Services and Plaintiffs filed Supplemental Briefs regarding whether Plaintiff should be allowed to include a Promissory Estoppel Cause of Action in the consolidated complaint.

Discussion

To cut to the chase, neither Judge Doyle’s previous order nor the Opinion from the Court of Appeal affirming Judge Doyle’s order dismissing the Promissory Estoppel Cause of Action are controlling here. Judge Doyle did not hold that a Promissory Estoppel Cause of Action was impermissible. What he held was that he was sustaining the demurrer below because an order authorizing Zakk to add a new cause of action and new defendants was required and had not been sought. Similarly, the Court of Appeal to did not make any ruling on the merits. It simply ruled that Judge Doyle was within his discretion in making this ruling. In fact, the only decision that has been made on the merits on this issue was Judge Kalin’s order overruling the demurrer to this cause of action in Action No. BC689424.

For the same reasons stated in Judge Kalin’s order, the Court rules that the consolidated complaint may include Zakk’s Promissory Estoppel Cause of Action.

DATED: October 30, 2019

______________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court