Pending litigation
Parzivand v. SetSchedule
An active employment case in Orange County Superior Court.
The caseAlleged
Daniel Parzivand v. SetSchedule, LLC, et al., Orange County Superior Court No. 30-2025-01483334-CU-OE-CJC, was filed May 16, 2025 and assigned for all purposes to Judge Jonathan Fish, Department C11, Central Justice Center.[Minute Order, Mar. 23, 2026]
The named defendants are SetSchedule, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Roy A. Dekel; Shayna R. Dekel; Richard Chenel; Udi Dorner; Yehuda Dorner; and Does 1 through 100.[FAC caption]
Plaintiff is represented by Edward W. Choi and Paul M. Yi of the Law Offices of Choi & Associates, APLC, and by Thomas M. Lee of Lee Law Offices, APLC. Defendants are represented by Darren Neilson of Parsons Behle & Latimer, St. George, Utah.[FAC caption]
Plaintiff alleges employment from January 2015 to July 31, 2024, in roles including intern, sales representative, sales manager, VP of sales operations, and chief client officer.[FAC ¶ 10]
A jury trial is scheduled for July 26, 2027, with a mandatory settlement conference on June 25, 2027.[Register of Actions, ROA 77–78]
Causes of actionAlleged
The First Amended Complaint pleads thirteen causes of action.[FAC]
- Unpaid overtime wages
- Statutory penalty under Labor Code § 203
- Statutory penalty under Labor Code § 226
- Additional wages under Labor Code § 226.7
- Violation of Labor Code § 2802
- Unpaid vacation wages
- Unpaid commission wages
- Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
- Breach of contract
- Fraud
- Failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records
- Violation of unfair competition laws (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
- Common count: money lent
Procedural historyAdjudicated
Defendants demurred on July 18, 2025, challenging only the ninth (breach of contract), tenth (fraud), and thirteenth (money lent) causes of action.[Minute Order, Mar. 23, 2026]
On March 23, 2026, Judge Fish overruled the demurrer as to breach of contract and money lent, and sustained it as to fraud with fifteen days’ leave to amend, on the ground that fraud had not been pled with the required specificity.[Minute Order, Mar. 23, 2026]
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 7, 2026.[FAC]
On June 12, 2026, all six defendants filed a general denial.[Register of Actions, ROA 71]
On July 8, 2026, plaintiff filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint, together with a supporting declaration and a request for judicial notice. A hearing on that demurrer is scheduled for February 1, 2027 in Department C11.[Register of Actions, ROA 83, 85, 89, 91]
The loan allegationsAlleged
Plaintiff alleges a written promissory note dated September 8, 2023, for principal of $150,000 with a 10% flat fee.[FAC ¶ 49]
Plaintiff alleges the note provided for six payments of $27,500 from October 8, 2023 to March 8, 2024.[FAC ¶ 50]
Plaintiff alleges he transferred $150,000.[FAC ¶ 51]
Plaintiff alleges $75,000 was repaid and that payments then ceased mid-schedule, with the balance withheld.[FAC ¶ 52]
Plaintiff alleges he was told continued unpaid labor was a condition of recovering the remainder, though no such condition appears in the note.[FAC ¶ 53]
Plaintiff alleges the representations were made by defendants through their officers, including Yehuda Dorner.[FAC ¶ 57]
The termination allegationsAlleged
Plaintiff alleges he was terminated on July 31, 2024, along with 15 to 20 other employees, under representations that the company was shutting down.[FAC ¶ 59]
Plaintiff alleges he continued working without compensation from August to November 2024.[FAC ¶ 59]
Plaintiff alleges he later learned the company remained operational.[FAC ¶ 60]
Paragraph 60Alleged
According to the complaint, plaintiff alleges that he later learned:[FAC ¶ 60]
- that Roy Dekel had previously been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with fraud for misappropriating over $3,200,000 from investors through false statements and Ponzi-scheme-like payments;
- that other individuals had loaned money to defendants before he did;
- that defendants knowingly provided false information regarding the company’s finances; and
- that loan funds were used for personal purposes, described in the pleading as extravagant trips on a private jet and a down payment for a personal home.
Alter ego allegationsAlleged
Plaintiff alleges commingling of personal and corporate funds; unauthorized diversion of corporate funds to non-corporate uses; undercapitalization; use of the entity as a mere shell, instrumentality, or conduit; and use of the corporate form as a shield against personal liability.[FAC ¶ 4]
An alter ego allegation seeks to hold individuals personally liable for an entity’s obligations.
Damages soughtAlleged
| Claim | Amount sought |
|---|---|
| Unpaid overtime (Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194)[FAC prayer] | $85,087.20+ |
| Statutory penalty (Lab. Code § 203)[FAC prayer] | $11,251.20+ |
| Statutory penalty (Lab. Code § 226)[FAC prayer] | $4,000.00+ |
| Additional wages (Lab. Code § 226.7)[FAC prayer] | $29,040.00+ |
| Unreimbursed expenses (Lab. Code § 2802)[FAC prayer] | $30,000.00+ |
| Unpaid vacation wages[FAC prayer] | $960.00+ |
| Unpaid commission wages[FAC prayer] | $100,000.00+ |
| Statutory penalty (Lab. Code § 226(f))[FAC prayer] | $750.00+ |
| Statutory penalty (Lab. Code § 1198.5)[FAC prayer] | $750.00+ |
| Repayment of money lent[FAC prayer] | $150,000.00+ |
Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief, and appointment of a receiver. Amounts are as stated in the prayer for relief and are claims, not awards.[FAC prayer]
Each amount above is pled as a minimum rather than a fixed sum. The prayer states the first seven as “in excess of” the figure shown, the two penalties as “no less than,” and the money lent as “exceeding.” The plus sign carries that qualifier.[FAC prayer]
Documents
These documents are public records obtained from the Orange County Superior Court.