This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract

David I. Epstein dba Epstein Advisors v. Neurametrix Inc., Jan Samzelius, Christian Olsson and Does 1-20, inclusive

Published: Jan. 22, 2021 | Result Date: Dec. 18, 2020 | Filing Date: Feb. 10, 2020 |

Case number: CGC-20-582829 Bench Decision –  Plaintiff

Judge

Richard B. Ulmer Jr.

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William J. Frimel
(Seubert, French, Frimel & Warner LLP)


Defendant

J. Craig Crawford
(Carr McClellan PC)

Thomas J. Gray
(Carr McClellan PC)


Facts

In 2013, Jan Samzelius and Christian Olsson founded NeuraMetrix, Inc., a neurotech startup company that analyzed users' idiosyncratic typing cadence in order to measure and monitor brain health. Plaintiff David Epstein doing business as Epstein Advisors entered into convertible promissory notes with defendant. The first note was in the amount of $100,000 and the second note was in the amount of $55,000. By December 22, 2019, the notes matured and payments of principal and interest became due. Plaintiff contacted other NeuraMetrix investors to solicit assignment of their claims for payments due under the notes. Eventually the other investors agreed to allow plaintiff to add claims related to the investors' notes to plaintiff's first and second note. Plaintiff David Epstein filed a breach of contract cause of action against defendants NeuraMetrix, Inc., Jan Samzelius and Christian Olson in relation to the two notes.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that despite its demand for payment, he has not been paid the amount owed on the first note and on the second note. Plaintiff contended that he is entitled to summary judgment on defendants' second affirmative defense because the written assignments of claims to him from NeuraMatrix noteholders were valid as a matter of law. Plaintiff contended that defendants owe plaintiff damages no less than $645,000 in unpaid principal.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions. Defendant contended that plaintiff could not prove he has standing as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to comply with the anti-assignment provisions in the assigned claims.

Result

The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.


#136410

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390