Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV01084, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV01084 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: L
Background
Case No.
21PSCV01059
Plaintiffs
Kimberly Zhou Tang (“Tang”), Ximing Zhou (“Zhou”) and Shuying Yang (“Yang”)
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
allege as follows: Zhou and Yang are married; Tang is their daughter.
Defendants
Kuei-Lin Hsieh aka Wainny Hsieh (“Hsieh”) and Nating Cai aka Shelly Cai (“Cai”)
are married. Hsieh
and/or Cai wholly or partially owned Articouture, Inc. (“Articouture”), All
Ambitions Corp. (“All
Ambitions”) and Closet Depot, Inc. (“Closet Depot”). Tang became good
friends with
Hsieh and Cai. Hsieh and Cai began to pitch a business investment venture with
Tang, which Tang
discussed with her parents. In or about February 2011, Plaintiffs and
Defendants
entered into a verbal agreement, wherein it was agreed that Plaintiffs would
invest
$500,000.00 into
Closet Depo, that Tang and her husband would be entitled to work at Closet
Depot and another
new company that was being started (i.e., Articouture) at a set monthly salary
and that Defendants would pay Plaintiffs
profits and bonus in the approximate amount of 15% of
the investment sum of $500,000.00 per annum
as long as the business was doing well. In or
about February 2011, Plaintiffs remitted
$500,000.00. Defendants thereafter asked Plaintiffs to
wait on the 15% profit sharing and bonus
because they were trying to expand the business, and
Plaintiffs agreed. On or about March 9, 2012,
Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a written
agreement wherein Defendants would secure
purchase orders from clients and locate factories in
China to source the merchandise to fulfill
the purchase orders, Plaintiffs would finance all
payments to factories in China up to the sum
of $320,000.00 and the parties would split the
profits after deducting costs and fees.
Plaintiffs remitted payments to 6 separate factories in
China at Defendants’ direction totaling
$320,840.27. In or about the end of March 2012,
Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
verbal agreement, wherein Plaintiffs would invest
$320,000.00 with Defendants to explore
business opportunities in China and, depending on the
business opportunities that Plaintiffs
procured, the parties would discuss how to proceed.
Pursuant to this verbal agreement, Plaintiffs
remitted $322,376.82 between March 28, 2012 and
July 2, 2012. On or about December 16, 2019,
Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a written
agreement wherein the parties agreed that the
balance owed on the first agreement was
$304,718.00, that the balance owed on the
second agreement was $320,000.00 and that the
balance owed on the third agreement was
$270,000.00. The parties agreed to a payment plan for
the balances owed. Defendants have since
breached the agreement by failing to make payments.
The current balance owed is $630,969.80.
Discussion
Hsieh, Cai,
Inkbrella and Inkscale (hereinafter collectively, “Defendants”) move the court
for an order dismissing the instant action, on the basis that it is duplicative
of Case No. 21PSCV01059.
The motion is
denied. Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading in this instant action,
to date. Defendants have failed to cite any statutory authority permitting the filing
of a motion to dismiss based on allegedly duplicative claims as a method to
challenge opposing pleadings. The court notes additionally that this complaint,
on its face, involves conduct that post dates the filing of the prior matter
and involves at least two new defendants.