This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/28/2018 at 23:47:10 (UTC).

NETPAY PAYROLL INC ET AL VS ZAK EINSTEIN

Case Summary

On 05/23/2017 NETPAY PAYROLL INC filed an Other - Complex Tort/Class Action lawsuit against ZAK EINSTEIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1596

  • Filing Date:

    05/23/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Complex Tort/Class Action

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES INC.

NETPAY PAYROLL INC.

ROES 1-10 INCLUSIVE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-100

EINSTEIN ZAK

HEARTLAND PAYROLL SOLUTIONS INC.

Cross Plaintiff

GRAY MICHAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. BOJIC

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SCHERWIN TODD B. ESQ.

VARTANIAN KRISTAPOR

 

Court Documents

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL GRAY?S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/5/2018: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL GRAY?S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN?S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/5/2018: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN?S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

9/12/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

9/12/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF ORDER, RE: ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/9/2018: NOTICE OF ORDER, RE: ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/10/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GRAY'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMLNDED COMPLAINT

4/12/2018: NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GRAY'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMLNDED COMPLAINT

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL GRAY'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/12/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL GRAY'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Unknown

6/27/2018: Unknown

PLAINTIFFS NETPAY PAYROLL, INC. AND NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/28/2018: PLAINTIFFS NETPAY PAYROLL, INC. AND NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MICHAEL GRAY TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/27/2018: ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MICHAEL GRAY TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFFS NETPAY PAYROLL, INC. AND NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/22/2018: PLAINTIFFS NETPAY PAYROLL, INC. AND NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/8/2018: NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF ANDREW J. HOAG IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/8/2018: DECLARATION OF ANDREW J. HOAG IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/8/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

5/22/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/18/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

DECLARATION OF PAUL D. BOJIC IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS NETPAY PAYROLL, INC. AND NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF S

8/22/2017: DECLARATION OF PAUL D. BOJIC IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS NETPAY PAYROLL, INC. AND NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF S

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/12/2018
  • SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Michael Gray (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Answer to Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Michael Gray (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Answer to Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Answer to Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT HEARTLAND PAYROLL SOLUTIONS, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
100 More Docket Entries
  • 08/01/2017
  • SPECIALLY-APPEARING DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • ZAK EINSTEIN'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY-APPEARING DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • Points and Authorities; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC661596    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Netpay Payroll, Inc. and Netpay Insurance Services, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE

ANALYSIS:

Motion to Compel Compliance

This should have been reserved and filed as three separate motions: (1) a motion to compel compliance; (2) a motion to compel further responses; and (3) a motion for evidentiary sanctions. However, only one hearing was reserved and only one filing fee was paid. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

The Court will only rule upon the motion to compel compliance[1]. The motion to compel further responses and motion for evidentiary sanctions is placed OFF-CALENDAR.

CCP § 2031.320(a) provides:

(a) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.

A motion to compel compliance pursuant to CCP § 2031.320 does not have a 45-day time limit, nor does it contain a meet and confer requirement or a good cause requirement. However, such a motion is only proper where the responding party represented in its response that it would comply with the request for production and failed to do so. CCP § 2031.320(a). A proper response to a request for production is “[a] statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling” by the date set forth in CCP § 2031.030(c)(2)(within a reasonable time, at least 30 days after service of the demand).

The motion to compel compliance is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 75, 76, 80, 81, 82.

Defendant’s counsel indicates that he learned that Plaintiffs are in possession of responsive documents. Declaration of Kristapor Vartanian, ¶ 9. Plaintiffs are to produce all of the following documents in their possession, custody or control to the extent they are responsive to the document requests:

¿ Contracts and agreements between Plaintiffs and customers at issue in this litigation;

¿ Documents showing the first and last date Plaintiffs did business with such customers;

¿ Documents showing accounts payable relating to such customers;

¿ Documents showing accounts receivable relating to such customers;

¿ Receipts and invoices related to such customers;

¿ Communications between Plaintiffs and subject customers after February 1, 2016;

¿ Communications between Plaintiffs’ officers, directors, owners or employees relating to the subject customers.

Production of documents is due within 20 days of this order.

The request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel, Law Offices of Paul D. Bojic, jointly and severally, is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,610.00. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days of this order.


[1] The Court notes that a motion to compel further responses would appear to be untimely based upon the February 25, 2019 service of responses (deadline: April 16, 2019). This motion was served and filed on May 29, 2019. Moreover, a motion for evidentiary sanctions would be premature at this stage.

Case Number: BC661596    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc. and Zak Einstein

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Netpay Payroll, Inc. and Netpay Insurance Services, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE

ANALYSIS:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

This should have been reserved and filed an four separate motions: (1) Defendant Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories from Plaintiff Netpay Payroll, Inc.; (2) Defendant Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses special interrogatories from Plaintiff Netpay Insurance Services, Inc..; (3) Defendant Zak Einstein’s motion to compel further responses special interrogatories from Plaintiff Netpay Payroll, Inc.; and (4) Defendant Zak Einstein’s motion to compel further responses special interrogatories from Plaintiff Netpay Insurance Services, Inc.

Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Accordingly, this order shall not become effective until moving party Defendants pay an additional $180 in filing fees.

These motions were timely served on May 22, 2019 and filed on May 23, 2019, relative to Plaintiffs’ service of supplemental responses on April 3, 2019 by mail. Vartanian Decl., ¶ 11; Exhs. L – O.

However, Plaintiffs served supplemental responses to special interrogatories on September 20, 2019. See Declaration of Paul Bojic, ¶ 5; Exh. A thereto. Accordingly, these motions to compel are MOOT. If Defendants desire further responses, they must meet and confer as to the supplemental responses and file new motions to compel.

Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel, Law Offices of Paul D. Bojic, jointly and severally, is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $3,840.00. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within 10 days.