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, SAMANTHA JESSNER and DAVID J. COWAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JOHN P. DOYLE
DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB
STEPHANIE M. BOWICK
JOSEPH R. KALIN
MICHAEL L. STERN
DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB
DAVID J. COWAN
ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS INC
DOES 1 TO 20
REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC
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
BARAB MARTIN J. ESQ.
BARAB MARTIN JOHN
BARAB MARTIN J.
HAMRICK RAYMOND A.
MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
FREEDMAN BRYAN J. ESQ.
GATTI JOHN MICHAEL
FREEDMAN BRYAN JOEL
FREEDMAN BRYAN J.
GATTI JOHN M.
1/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONT...)
11/18/2020: 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
8/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))
10/25/2019: Brief - BRIEF PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S BRIEF RE RIGHT TO BRING PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM
10/30/2019: Case Management Order
7/26/2018: DEFENDANTS MARK VINCENT AND ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX P4RTE APPLICATION
8/20/2018: DECLARATION OF SEAN M. HARDY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ONE RACE PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND VIN DIESEL'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
6/15/2018: PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S BRIEF RE: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE COURT'S JUNE 8, 2018 ORDER RE: ALTERNATIVE WRIT
6/21/2018: Minute Order -
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
4/12/2018: Minute Order -
4/19/2018: Minute Order -
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
3/20/2018: DEFENDANT REVOLUTION PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK'S COMPLAINT
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
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
1/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Hearing11/09/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing10/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 78; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Notice of Minute Order Continuing Final Status Conference and Trial Dates); Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSupplemental Declaration (PLAINTIFF GEORGE ZAKK?S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT REGARDING ZAKK?S REQUEST FOR AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE AS TO THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT FROM THE ?DIESEL DEFENDANTS?); Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:49 PM in Department 78; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Cont...) of 01/08/2021); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Cont...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE); Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by George Zakk (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC689424 Hearing Date: October 30, 2019 Dept: 78
ONE RACE PRODUCTION INC., et al.;
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.
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:
Breach of contract
Breach of implied-in-fact contract
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.
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