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.
****1596
05/23/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE
NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES INC.
NETPAY PAYROLL INC.
ROES 1-10 INCLUSIVE
DOES 1-100
EINSTEIN ZAK
HEARTLAND PAYROLL SOLUTIONS INC.
GRAY MICHAEL
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. BOJIC
SCHERWIN TODD B. ESQ.
VARTANIAN KRISTAPOR
7/5/2018: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL GRAY?S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
7/5/2018: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN?S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/12/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
9/12/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
2/9/2018: NOTICE OF ORDER, RE: ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4/10/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
4/12/2018: NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GRAY'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMLNDED COMPLAINT
4/12/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL GRAY'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
6/27/2018: Unknown
6/28/2018: PLAINTIFFS NETPAY PAYROLL, INC. AND NETPAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
7/27/2018: ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MICHAEL GRAY TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND 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
1/8/2018: NOTICE AND STATEMENT 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
1/8/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ZAK EINSTEIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
5/22/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC
7/18/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
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
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Michael Gray (Cross-Complainant)
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc. (Defendant)
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
Answer to Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Michael Gray (Cross-Complainant)
Answer to Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)
Answer to Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc. (Defendant)
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT HEARTLAND PAYROLL SOLUTIONS, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
SPECIALLY-APPEARING DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
ZAK EINSTEIN'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY-APPEARING DEFENDANT ZAK EINSTEIN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
Points and Authorities; Filed by Zak Einstein (Defendant)
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Complaint; Filed by null
SUMMONS
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC
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.