Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 24AHCV00190, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24AHCV00190 Hearing Date: April 19, 2024 Dept: P
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF MAXSPEED’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a dispute arising from an employment relationship. Plaintiff
Maxspeed Global Inc. (Maxspeed) allegedly employed Defendants Zheng You and
Jianwen Huang. You and Huang are husband and wife. Plaintiff alleges that You
and Huang started their own businesses, the entity defendants Aspeed Global
Inc., J Plus A Global Inc., AEK Logistics Inc. and Elements Therapeutic Massage
Studio with stolen funds from Plaintiff. Plaintiff Haiyang Ma alleges that he is
the incorporator of Maxspeed and current CFO and CEO. Plaintiff Maxspeed is in
the transport business, as are three of the entity defendants.
The complaint alleges thirteen causes of action: (1) Breach
of Fiduciary Duty (2) Breach of Duty of Undivided Loyalty, (3) Constructive
Fraud, (4) Conversion (5) Waste of Corporate Assets, (6) Unjust enrichment, (7)
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (8) Violation of BPC § 17200, (9)
Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (10) Accounting,
(11) declaratory relief, (12) constructive trust and (13 defamation per se.
Plaintiff Maxspeed filed an ex parte application for TRO
and OSC re preliminary injunction on February 13, 2024. In ruling on the ex
parte (TRO denied 2/15/24), the Court set an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary
Injunction for March 22, 2024. Defendants filed an opposition on March 11,
2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on March 15, 2024, including supplemental
declarations. The Court declines to consider evidence submitted for the first
time on reply. The hearing was then continued to its current date of April 19,
2024 to accommodate the Court’s calendar.
Plaintiff Maxspeed seeks a prohibitory preliminary
injunction preventing Defendants from using Maxspeed’s business records, bank
accounts and credit cards.
Maxspeed
also seeks a mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to return all business
and financial records of Maxspeed, including but not limited to, bookkeeping documents and software accounts, to Maxspeed’s
shareholders, directors, and officers.
The
preliminary injunction is DENIED.
II.
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
The Court
refers the parties to Attachment 1 to the Court’s tentative ruling in this
matter. This attachment will be emailed
separately to the parties. The Court
does not consider proffered evidence for which objections have been
sustained.
III. LEGAL
STANDARD
Code
Civ. Proc. §526 (a) provides grounds on which an injunction may issue:
(1)
When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period
or perpetually.
(2)
When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or
continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or
irreparable injury, to a party to the action.
(3)
When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or
threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act
in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the
subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
(4)
When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.
(5)
Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation
which would afford adequate relief.
(6)
Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial
proceedings.
(7)
Where the obligation arises from a trust.
IV. EVIDENCE
In support of its motion, Maxspeed offers the following:
A. Declaration of Haixang Ma
In support of its
motion for preliminary injunction, Maxspeed offers the declaration of Haixang Ma.
He declares that Defendant You and Huang were fired November 13, 2023. (Ma
Decl. ¶ 3.) He declares that two days later, November 15, 2023, the individual
defendants opened an unauthorized Chase bank account in Maxspeed’s name. (Ma
Decl. ¶ 6.)
He declares that the individual defendants then contacted a
client of Plaintiff’s and provided the Chase bank account as the one invoices
should now be paid to. Defendants sent the email ‘updating’ bank information on
November 22, 2023. (Ma Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10, see Exh. D.) Ma declares that the
Defendants sent a further correspondence to the client, Qimei, claiming that Ma
himself was no longer part of Maxspeed and to contact Defendants instead. (Ma
Decl. ¶ 12.)
Next, Ma declares
that on January 22, 2024, Defendants told Qimei that Maxspeed was now doing
business as J Plus A Global Inc. and to send their orders to that entity.
However, J Plus A Global was Defendant’s company, not affiliated with Maxspeed.
(Ma Decl. ¶¶ 14, 15, see Exh. B.) Ma declares that the same fraudulent message,
that Maxspeed was now taking orders under the name J Plus A Global Inc. was
sent to three other Maxspeed clients. (Ma Decl. ¶¶ 18,22, 24, 27.)
Ma attaches copies of the emails Maxspeed’s clients
received, as well as an itemized list of deposits and withdrawals from the
unauthorized Chase bank account in Maxspeed’s name. (Exhs. A-E, Exh.
F-statement of withdrawals.) He also attaches a bank account statement from
Maxspeed’s authorized business account at Bank of America, where he alleges
Defendant You and Huang used their business credit cards to pay down their
personal credit card balances. (Exh. G.)
B. Declaration of Kaisheng Yang
Maxspeed also provides the declaration of Kaisheng Yang in
support of its motion. (Yang Decl.) Yang is Maxspeed and Ma’s attorney.
(Kaisheng Yang Decl. ¶ 1.) He declares that the ex parte was served
appropriately on all parties. (Kaisheng Yang Decl. ¶ 2.)
In response, Defendants proffer the following evidence:
A. Declaration of Jianwen Huang
In opposition, Defendants offer the declaration of Jianwen
Huang, one of the individual defendants. (Huang Decl.) He declares that Maxspeed’s principal place of
business is his home address, 20151 San Gabriel Valley Drive, Walnut, CA 91789.
(Huang Decl. ¶ 3.) He declares that he runs and operates Maxspeed and that due
to the intricacies of the trucking business, no one else may operate it. (Huang
Decl. ¶¶ 4,6.) He denies all allegations in Ma’s declaration along with the
allegations in the complaint. (Huang Decl. ¶ 5.)
He details why he and his wife, Zheng You, are uniquely
suited to run Maxspeed. (Huang Decl. ¶ 6.) He declares that in particular, Mr.
Zhu has only ever been a truck driver for Maxspeed and cannot run the company.
(Huang Decl. ¶ 6 g.)
Lastly, he declares that he believes Mr. Zhu and Mr. Ma
conspired to embezzle corporate funds from Maxspeed, alleging that Zhu and Ma
exchanged texts planning to do so. (Huang Decl. ¶ 6h.)
B. Declaration of Zheng You
Defendants also
offer the declaration of the other named individual defendant, Zheng You. (You
Declaration.) She declares that Maxspeed’s principal place of business is her
home, 20151 San Gabriel Valley Drive, Walnut, CA 91789. (You Decl. ¶ 3.) She
declares that she is the co-founder and majority owner of Maxspeed. (You Decl.
¶ 4.) She attaches a copy of Maxspeed’s 2022 tax returns showing that she
invested $80,000 in the company. (You Decl. Exh. A.) She declares that her
husband, Defendant Jianwen Huang, manages and operates Maxspeed with her and is
primarly responsible for the financial aspects of the company. (You Decl. ¶ 7.)
As to Plaintiff Ma, she declares that since the beginning,
he was an insubordinate employee of Maxspeed and did not hold a significant
role in the company. You Decl. ¶ 5.) She declares that Ma is incapable of
running the business. (You Decl. ¶ 6.) Ma, however, was the incorporator of
Maxspeed. (You Decl. ¶ 8, see Exh. B: text messages between You and Ma.) She
declares that starting in October of 2023, she and Ma had a disagreement over
the use of company money, which she characterizes as Ma embezzling the company.
(You Decl. ¶ 10, see Exh. C: Bank of America account records.)
As a result of Ma withdrawing $551,000 from the company
account, she declares that she had to borrow and use her and her husband’s own
money to pay the drivers who worked for Maxspeed. (You Decl. ¶ 11.)
C. Declaration of Ji Wang
Defendants
also offer the declaration of Ji Wang, one of Maxspeed’s former customers.
(Wang Decl.) He declares that he is a manager of VIP Supply Chain currently,
but used to be a manager at Amoybay Corp., a former customer of Maxspeed. (Wang
Decl. ¶ 2.) He declares that Plaintiff Ma called him and “threatened me not to
do business with Maxspeed Global Inc, or else I would ‘regret it’.” (Wang Decl.
¶ 3.)
He goes on to declares he understands that Ma embezzled
money from Maxspeed (Wang Decl. ¶ 3) and that You and Huang are the main
operators of Maxspeed. (Wang Decl. ¶ 4.)
He also declares that he received an email from WIZ
Logistics, Inc., a company he referred to Maxspeed. (Wang Decl. ¶ 5.) He
declares that “an email address of Maxspeed2023@gmail.com informing WIZ
Logistics that Maxspeed will stop accepting more business from customers due to
‘internal restructuring.’ WIZ Logistics forwarded this email to me and asked me
to verify if that's true.” (Id.) He declares that in response, he asked
Defendant You, who he understood and understands to be one of the main
operators of Maxspeed if this was true. In response, Wang declares that “Zheng
You informed me that the email address Maxspeed2023@gmail.com does not belong
to Maxspeed and Maxspeed never sent such an email to WIZ Logistics on
11/19/2023.” (Id.)
D. Declaration of Bingrong “Ivy” Guo
Defendants also offer the declaration of Ivy Guo. (Ivy
Decl.) She declares that she is the owner of a warehousing company that did
business with Maxspeed. (Ivy Decl. ¶ 2.)
She declares that You and
Huang are the operators of Maxspeed. (Ivy Decl. ¶ 2.)
As to Plaintiff Ma, she declares that he was an assistant
at Maxspeed. She declares “I had previously complained about Haiyang Ma being
too sloppy, makes a lot of mistakes, and not being able to do his job well. (Ivy
Decl. ¶ 3.)
Lastly, she declares that only You and Huang can run
Maxspeed because she only trusts them. (Ivy Decl. ¶ 3.)
E. Declaration of Alvin Guo
Defendants also offer the declaration of Alvin Guo, the
owner of Axspeed Management Inc., one of Maxspeed’s customers. (Alvin Decl. ¶
2.) He declares that “Haiyang Ma called me up and told me that Zheng You and
Jianwen Huang ‘stole money from Maxspeed’ and asked me ‘not to do business’
with Maxspeed. I later on learned that it was Haiyang Ma who embezzled a
substantial amount of company's funds.” (Alvin Decl. ¶ 3.)
F. Declaration of Alfred H. Chan
Defendants also offer the declaration of Alfred H. Chan, their
attorney. (Chan Declaration.) He attaches several relevant documents: a copy of
the November 20, 2023 Cease and Desist letter he sent Haixiang Ma (Exh. 1), a
copy of the November 29, 2023 letter he received from Hong Li, Plaintiff’s
previous attorney (Exh. 2), and copies of his emails to Plaintiffs’ current
counsel, Kaisheng Yang (Exhs. 3-5.)
The cease-and-desist letter (Exh 1) states “Our firm [AH
Chan Law Firm] represents Maxspeed Global, Inc. (“Maxspeed”) with respect to
the above-referenced matter” and “You are not authorized to direct operations,
and any authority previously granted you as an employee of Maxspeed, either
ostensible or actual, is hereby revoked in its entirety.” (Exh. 1.) The cease-and-desist
letter also alleges that Ma embezzled $551,000.00 from the company accounts.
In contrast, Hong Li’s November 29, 2023 email (Exh. 2)
states “Mr. Ma is a 25% minority owner of Maxspeed Global and has been the CEO
and CFO of the corporation since day one” and that “at least $329,188.05 was
transferred or paid by Emma You to her own family or her other newly formed
companies. In addition, Mr. Ma also discovered that your clients Emma You and
Jianwen Huang used four Maxspeed business credit cards to cover their personal
and family expenses, in an amount of at least $127,626.28.” (Exh. 2.) These two
amounts add up to approximately $551,000.
G. Declaration of Xiaowei Xu
Defendants also offer the declaration of Xiaowei Xu, a
truck driver for Maxspeed Global. (Xu Decl. ¶ 2.) He declares that he
understood Zheng You to be the person in charge of Maxspeed and that “[s]he
(Zheng You) is the person in-charge of dispatching drivers, including myself.
As a driver, I follow her instruction.” (Xu Decl. ¶ 3.) He declares that
Defendant Jianwen Huang oversees Maxspeed’s finances. (Xu Decl. ¶ 4.)
As to Plaintiff Haixiang Ma, Xu declares “I will not work
with Haiyang Ma as he lacks the ability to properly dispatch, including
calculating drivers' pay.” (Xu Decl. ¶ 5.) He declares that Ma embezzled
corporate funds. (Xu Decl. ¶ 7.)
He further declares that on January 18, 2024, a check his
company received from Maxspeed bounced. (Xu Decl. ¶ 8.) He declares that he was
told this was because Ma filed a false fraud claim. (Id.)
H. Declaration of Longxiang Li
Defendants also offer the declaration of Longxiang Li, another
truck driver for Maxspeed Global. (Li Decl. ¶ 2.) He declares that he
understood Zheng You to be the person in charge of Maxspeed and that “[s]he (Zheng
You) is the person in-charge of dispatching drivers, including myself. As a
driver, I follow her instruction to pick up and deliver containers.” (Li Decl.
¶ 3.) He declares that Jianwen Huang oversees the finances of Maxspeed Global.
(Li Decl. ¶ 4.) He declares that without the two individual Defendants,
Maxspeed would not function properly. (Li Decl. ¶ 6.)
As to Plaintiff Haixiang Ma, Li declares “I will not work
with Haiyang Ma as he lacks the ability to properly dispatch, including
calculating drivers' pay. Haiyang Ma often makes mistakes. Therefore, if he
takes over operation and/or do dispatching, I will not work for Maxspeed
anymore.” (Li Decl. ¶ 5.) He declares that Ma embezzled corporate funds and
that Defendants Zheng You and Jianwen Huang assured him he would be paid
despite this. (Li Decl. ¶ 7.)
I. Declaration of Junning Fu
Defendants also offer the declaration of Junning Fu,
another truck driver for Maxspeed Global. Like the other truck drivers, he
declares that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed
and Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Fu Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that he understands Ma to be incapable of dispatching. (Fu Decl. ¶ 5.)
He declares that he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Fu Decl. ¶ 7.)
J. Declaration of Jingchu Xiao
Defendants offer the declaration of Jingchu Xiao. (Xiao
Declaration.) However, the declaration is empty but for a declaration that the
declaration is made under penalty of perjury.
K. Declaration of Xiaowei Huang
Defendants offer the declaration of Xiaowei Huang, the
owner of Moving Box Company, another trucking company. (Xiaowei Decl. ¶ 2.) He
declares that Zheng You contacted him in November of 2023 for help moving some
containers from port terminals to avoid a fee. (Xiaowei Decl. ¶ 3.) He declares
that Zheng You requested that help because Ma embezzled funds and Maxspeed
could not pay its drivers. (Id.)
He also declares that he understands Zheng You and Jianwen
Huang to be the main operators of Maxspeed. (Xiaowei Decl. ¶ 4.)
L. Declaration of Annie Su
Defendants also include the declaration of Annie Su, a
former manager of Dynatrans Inc., a trucking company. (Su Decl. ¶ 2.) She
declares that like Xiaowei Huang, she was contacted by Zheng You for help
moving some containers from port terminals to avoid a fee. (Su Decl. ¶ 3.) She
declares that Zheng You requested that help because Ma embezzled funds and
Maxspeed could not pay its drivers. (Id.)
She also declares that she understands Zheng You and
Jianwen Huang to be the main operators of Maxspeed. (Su Decl. ¶ 4.)
M. Declaration of Zhongxing Yang
Defendants also include the declaration of Zhongxing Yang,
another truck driver for Maxspeed. Like the other truck drivers, he declares
that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed and
Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Yang Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that he understands Ma to be incapable of dispatching. (Yang Decl. ¶
5.) He declares that he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Yang Decl. ¶ 7.)
He also declares that a check he received bounced on January
18, 2024. He declares he was told this was because Ma filed a false fraud
claim. (Yang Decl. ¶ 6.)
N. Declaration of Chunlei Diao
Defendants also include the declaration of Chunlei Diao,
another truck driver for Maxspeed. Like the other truck drivers, he declares
that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed and
Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Diao Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that he understands Ma to be incapable of dispatching. (Diao Decl. ¶
5.) He declares that he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Diao Decl. ¶ 7.)
He further declares that a check he received bounced on
January 22, 2024. He declares he was told this was because Ma filed a false
fraud claim. (Diao Decl. ¶ 8.)
O. Declaration of Chengping Liu
Defendants also include the declaration of Chengping Liu,
another truck driver for Maxspeed. Like the other truck drivers, he declares
that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed and
Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Chenping Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that he understands Ma to be incapable of dispatching. (Chengping Decl.
¶ 5.) He declares that he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Chengping Decl. ¶
7.)
He further declares that a check he received bounced on
January 22, 2024. He declares he was told this was because Ma filed a false
fraud claim. (Chengping Decl. ¶ 8.)
P. Declaration of Wenjing “Karen” Wang
Defendants also offer the declaration of Wenjing “Karen”
Wang, a manager for Taikoo Inc, a freight forwarding company and customer of
Maxspeed. (Wang Decl. ¶ 2.) She declares that she understands Zheng You and
Jianwen Huang to oversee Maxspeed. (Wang Decl. ¶ 3.)
As to Plaintiff Ma, she declares “I have customers who have
complained about Haiyang Ma's ability and attitude. If Haiyang Ma takes over
operation of Maxspeed including in-charge of dispatching drivers, Taikoo will
not work with Maxspeed because I only trust Zheng You and Jianwen Huang.” (Wang
Decl. ¶ 4.)
Q. Declaration of Meng “James” Li
Defendants also offer the declaration of Meng “James” Li,
the owner of LRP Inc, a warehousing company and customer of Maxspeed. (Meng
Decl. ¶ 2.) Like the others, he declares that he understands Zheng You and
Jianwen Huang to be the operators of Maxspeed. (Id.)
He further declares “Haiyang Ma was acting as an assistant,
and Zhu Jia Chuan would deliver containers to our warehouse as a driver. If
Haiyang Ma or Zhu Jia Chuan takes over operation of Maxspeed, LRP, You and
Jianwen Huang. Inc. will not work with Maxspeed because I only trust Zheng You
and Jianwen Huang.” (Meng Decl. ¶ 3.)
R. Declaration of Jimmy Jun Lu
Defendants also include the declaration of Jimmy Jun Lu,
another truck driver for Maxspeed. Like the other truck drivers, he declares
that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed and
Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Lu Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that Ma is incapable of dispatching. (Lu Decl. ¶ 5.) He declares that
he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Lu Decl. ¶ 6.)
S. Declaration of Ge Zhang
Defendants also include the declaration of Ge Zhang,
another truck driver for Maxspeed. Like the other truck drivers, he declares
that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed and
Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Ge Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that Ma is incapable of dispatching. (Ge Decl. ¶ 5.) He declares that
he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Ge Decl. ¶ 7.)
T. Declaration of Gang Wang
Defendants also include the declaration of Gang Wang,
another truck driver for Maxspeed. Like the other truck drivers, he declares
that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed and
Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Gang Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that Ma is incapable of dispatching. (Gang Decl. ¶ 5.) He declares
that he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Gang Decl. ¶ 6.)
U. Declaration of Chunmeng Sun
Defendants also include the declaration of Chunmeng Sun,
another truck driver for Maxspeed. Like the other truck drivers, he declares
that he understands that Zheng You is the person in charge of Maxspeed and
Jianwen Huang runs the financial side of Maxspeed. (Sun Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) He
declares that Ma is incapable of dispatching. (Sun Decl. ¶ 5.) He declares that
he learned that Ma embezzled funds. (Sun Decl. ¶ 7.)
V. DISCUSSION
A. Prohibitory Injunction versus Mandatory Injunction
A prohibitory
injunction requests the Court intervene to maintain the status quo. Here, Maxspeed
is asking for a prohibitory injunction preventing Defendants from using Maxspeed’s
credit cards, bank account information and business records.
The burden is higher for a mandatory injunction because the
moving party is asking the Court to disturb the status quo. (See Shoemaker
v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 618, 625.) Here, Maxspeed is
also requesting a mandatory injunction ordering the handing over of business-related
documents, including but not limited to, bookkeeping documents and software
accounts, to Maxspeed’s shareholders, directors, and officers.
B. Balancing
the Equities
“ ‘[A] preliminary injunction is an order that is
sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim.’
(White
v. Davis
(2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 648, 68 P.3d 74, italics omitted.)
‘To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to
present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer
if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits.’ (Ibid.)
“Trial courts ‘ “ ‘evaluate two interrelated
factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The
first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial.
The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the
injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to
suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.’ ” ’ (ITV Gurney
Holding Inc. v. Gurney (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 22, 28–29.)” Amgen, Inc. v. Health Care Services (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 716,
731.)
C. Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits
1. Conversion
Maxspeed urges that it is likely to prevail on the
merits of its conversion cause of action against all defendants because it has
demonstrated stealing of business information. Citing Lee v. Harley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225,
1240, Maxspeed urges that the elements of conversion are: (1) plaintiff’s
ownership of the property at issue, (2) defendant’s conversion by wrongful act
and (3) plaintiff was harmed as a result. Preliminary injunctions are possible
remedies to conversion. (Gladstone v. Hillel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 977, 989-990.)
Maxspeed urges that it has adequately demonstrated
conversion has taken place, as the individual Defendants, Huang and You, were
fired November 13, 2023 (Ma Decl. ¶ 3) and the suspect bank account and emails
to Maxspeed customers directing them to order from Defendant’s newly formed
business and deposit into the suspect ban account occurred after Huang and You
were fired. (Ma Decl. ¶¶ 30-32.)
In their opposition, Defendants urge that they have
presented sufficient evidence that the ownership of Maxspeed is in question.
(See Opposition p. 9: 13-14.) The Court agrees, as Defendants have presented 21
separate declarations stating that they are the owners and operators of
Maxspeed. As the ownership of Maxspeed is in question, it is unclear from the
evidence presented what actions constitute conversion from Maxspeed. The second
element of conversion is not met. (Lee v. Harley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240.)
Defendants also urge that they have presented
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ma’s role in Maxspeed is in dispute. The
Court at this time does not conclude who owns Maxspeed or that Ma was or was
not the CEO/CFO.
In its reply, Maxspeed argues that Ma and Maxspeed
are distinguishable, and Ma’s actions cannot be imputed to the business. (Reply
p. 3: 10-23.) Maxspeed further argues about the corporate structure of
Maxspeed, and in doing so, clearly demonstrates that the corporate structure is
in dispute.
Maxspeed has not presented sufficient evidence of a
likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its claims. Due to the overwhelming
amount of evidence presented in opposition, the Court concludes that the
ownership of Maxspeed and the various roles parties had with respect to
Maxspeed is in dispute. As both sides allege and support with evidence that the
other side is stealing from Maxspeed, the Court concludes the first prong of a
preliminary injunction, likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the
conversion cause of action, has not been met. For that reason, the preliminary
injunction is denied.
VI. ORDER
Maxspeed’s motion
for a preliminary injunction is denied.
Counsel
for Defendants is ordered to give notice of ruling.
Dated: April 18, 2024
JARED D. MOSES
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Attachment 1 to this ruling will be emailed to the parties.