This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/21/2021 at 01:37:35 (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 Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1596

  • Filing Date:

    05/23/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other - Complex Tort/Class Action

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Petitioners, Cross Defendants and Plaintiffs

NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES INC.

NETPAY PAYROLL INC.

ROES 1-10 INCLUSIVE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1-100

EINSTEIN ZAK

HEARTLAND PAYROLL SOLUTIONS INC.

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

EINSTEIN ZAK

GRAY MICHAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. BOJIC

BOJIC PAUL D.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SCHERWIN TODD B. ESQ.

VARTANIAN KRISTAPOR

CHAPMAN NATHAN D.

 

Court Documents

Order - Order [Proposed] Order Granting Ex Parte Application

2/5/2019: Order - Order [Proposed] Order Granting Ex Parte Application

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc. and De...)

2/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc. and De...)

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Unopposed Ex Parte Application for Cour to Briefley Continue Non-Jury Trial Date

2/5/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Unopposed Ex Parte Application for Cour to Briefley Continue Non-Jury Trial Date

Notice of Ruling

2/6/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/18/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

4/26/2019: Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/23/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Declaration - DECLARATION OF KRISTAPOR VARTANIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

5/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF KRISTAPOR VARTANIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Separate Statement

5/23/2019: Separate Statement

Order - RULING: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

5/28/2019: Order - RULING: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON NATHAN D. CHAPMAN'S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO ...)

5/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON NATHAN D. CHAPMAN'S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO ...)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/29/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Declaration - DECLARATION OF KRISTAPOR VARTANIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

5/29/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF KRISTAPOR VARTANIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF NATHAN D. CHAPMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

5/29/2019: Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF NATHAN D. CHAPMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

Separate Statement

5/29/2019: Separate Statement

Notice of Ruling

5/29/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT TO CONTINUE NON-JURY TRIAL DATE

6/4/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT TO CONTINUE NON-JURY TRIAL DATE

Order - RULING: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

6/4/2019: Order - RULING: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

104 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial ((estimate5 days)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
202 More Docket Entries
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketPoints and Authorities; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketSPECIALLY-APPEARING DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****1596    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: ****1596    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.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SCHERWIN TODD BRIAN