COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (2024)

COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (1)

COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (2)

  • COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (3)
  • COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (4)
  • COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (5)
  • COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (6)
 

Preview

Filing # 81191244 E-Filed 11/26/2018 01:55:46 PMIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDACASE NO.: 50-2018-CA-014081XXXXMBWANG JUE, an individual; WANG JIAN, anindividual; SUN MENYANG, an individual; GAOLI, an individual; CHEN JUN, an_ individual;ZHANG SHIKUN, an individual; CHENG LI, anindividual; TAN JING, an individual; LI XIANG, anindividual; LIU DANQING, an individual; MANMINGYUE, an individual; WANG JING, anindividual; and LIU CHENGLIN, an individual;Plaintiffs,Vv.JOSEPH WALSH, an individual; JOSEPH WALSH,JR., an individual; J. MARCUS PAYNE, anindividual; SOUTH ATLANTIC REGIONALCENTER, LLC, a Florida Limited LiabilityCompany; UNITED STATES REGIONALCENTER, LLC, a Delaware Limited LiabilityCompany; JIW CONSULTANCY, LTD., a HongKong Company; GERRY MATTHEWS, anindividual; MARIA a/k/a MIA MATTHEWS, anindividual; RYAN BLACK, an individual; CRAIGBODEN, an individual; DAVID DERRICO, anindividual; THIRD SEVEN CAPITAL, LLC, aDelaware Limited Liability Company; SILVERLEAF PARTNERS, LLC, a New York LimitedLiability Company; PALM HOUSE, LLC, aDelaware Limited Liability Company; PALM |HOUSE PB, LLC, a Florida Limited LiabilityCompany; MIRABIA, LLC, a Delaware Limited ~Liability Company; BONAVENTURE 22, LLC, aFlorida Limited Liability Company; ALIBI LLC, aDelaware Limited Liability Company; NICHOLASLAUDANO, an_ individual; NEW HAVENCONTRACTING SOUTH, INC., a Florida -corporation, BOTTICELLI ADVISORS, LLC, aFlorida Limited Liability Company; NIJLDEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC, a DelawareLimited Liability Company; LESLIE ROBERTEVANS, an individual; LESLIE ROBERT EVANS& ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Florida professionalassociation; KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC, a FloridaLimited Liability Company; GLENN STRAUB, an1178357v.1FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 11/26/2018 01:55:46 PMindividual; and PALM HOUSE HOTEL, LLLP, aFlorida limited liability limited partnership;Defendants.CORRECTED COMPLAINT ANDREQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEFPlaintiffs WANG JUE, WANG JIAN, SUN MENYANG, GAO LI, CHEN JUN, ZHANGSHIKUN, CHENG LI, TAN JING, LI XIANG, LIU DANQING, MAN MINGYUE, WANG JINGand LIU CHENGLIN (collectively “Plaintiffs,” the “Other Palm House Litigants” or “OPHLs”),hereby file their Corrected Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief! (the “Complaint’”) againstDefendants JOSEPH WALSH (“Walsh”), JOSEPH WALSH, JR. (“Walsh Jr.”), J. MARCUSPAYNE (“Payne”), SOUTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL CENTER, LLC (“SARC”), UNITEDSTATES REGIONAL CENTER, LLC (“USREDA”), JJW CONSULTANCY, LTD (“WalshAsia”), RYAN BLACK (“Black”), CRAIG BODEN (“Boden”), DAVID DERRICO (“Derrico”),GERRY MATTHEWS, PALM HOUSE LLC, PALM HOUSE PB, LLC (“Palm House PB”),MIRABIA, LLC, (“Mirabia”) BONAVENTURE 22, LLC (“Bonaventure”), ALIBI LLC(“Alibi”), NICHOLAS LAUDANO (“Laudano”), NEW HAVEN CONTRACTING SOUTH,INC. (““NHCS”), BOTTICELLI ADVISORS, LLC (“BOTTICELLI”), NJL DEVELOPMENTGROUP LLC (“NJL”), MARIA A/K/A MIA MATTHEWS, LESLIE“ROBERT EVANS(“Evans”), LESLIE ROBERT EVANS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. (“Evans Law Firm”), (together,Leslie Robert Evans and Leslie Robert Evans & Associates, P.A. shall be referred to as the “EvansDefendants”), KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC. GLENN STRAUB (collectively, the “Bad Actors”),along with PALM HOUSE HOTEL, LLLP, SILVER LEAF PARTNERS, LLC (“Silver Leaf”)and THIRD SEVEN CAPITAL, LLC (“Third Seven”) (collectively, the Bad Actors, Silver Leaf,Third Seven and Palm House Hotel, LLLP shall be referred to as the “Defendants”), and state asfollows:' Corrected Complaint corrects a scrivener’s error to match the parties in the caption and body.21178357v.1INTRODUCTION1. The OPHLs are 13 EB-S investors originally from China (one of whom now residesin Palm Beach County, Florida) who are among 90 victims of the Palm House Hotel EB-5 fraudwhich has been the subject of news storics of predicate acts of wrongdoing, SEC actions andcriminal indictments (the “Palm House Enterprise”). Over $45 million of funds from EB-5investors, including over $7 million of that of the OPHLs, was frittered away in self-dealing andwrongful conduct perpetrated or aided by Defendants, some of whom have been engaged in otherEB-5 frauds.2. The Bad Actors conspired to fraudulently induce the OPHLs and others to invest$500,000 in the Palm House Enterprise, in addition to a $40,000-$60,000 “administrative fee”from which some money was allegedly used for the payment of legal services of dubious value.3. As is customary in the EB-5 industry, the OPHLs’ funds were supposed to be heldin an escrow account or at least represented in some sort of reserve account unless and until their1-526 immigration petitions (“I-526s”) were approved by United States Citizenship andImmigration Services (“USCIS”).4. If and when the OPHLs’ I-526s were approved, under the investment documentsand applicable law, the funds by law were only supposed to be used to complete their EB-5 jobcreating project. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(j); 216(a). The Palm House Enterprise, for each investor’s$500,000 investment, was purported to create at least 10 full-time jobs for qualifying U.S. workersbased on completion of the renovation and development of the Palm House Hotel into a flourishingbusiness. These funds instead found their way into the pockets of several of the Bad Actors orothers, or were simply wasted through various predicate acts of conversion and fraud in furtheranceof the Palm House Enterprise.5, The Palm House Enterprise solicited and obtained EB-5 investors through 2015.However, funds of EB-5 investors, including those of the OPHLs, were not held in escrow pending31178357v.11-526 approval or reserved in the event they were used. Instead, the Palm House Enterprise reliedupon a rogue’s gallery of companies and individuals to carry out its malevolent objectives.6. Once funds were committed to the Palm House Enterprise, those funds weredeposited into a fake escrow account -- which was in reality just a regular business checkingaccount — and then distributed to other accounts and thereafter looted by the Bad Actors involvedand aiding in the malevolent enterprise.7. Specifically, once the OPHLs’ funds and those of others arrived in the fake escrowaccount, most of the money was quickly moved to a second “clearing” account.8. From those two accounts, funds were “skimmed” right off the top by DefendantJoseph Walsh and his affiliated companies, as he admitted under oath in a related state court action,and never sent to the Palm House Hotel EB-5 project or anyone purportedly associated with theproject. Rather, those funds were likely used for non-allowable purposes, including lavish partieson Walsh’s boat, at least one of which is believed to have been headlined by rapper Flo-Rida, whosupposedly was assisting on an EB-5 project for Walsh involving a motorsports venture.9. As part of the Palm House Enterprise, the funds of the OPHLs and others were alsomoved to the Evans Defendants and thereafter used by several of the Bad Actors for non-allowablepurposes including, upon information and belief, personal tax and mortgage expenses, a 151 footyacht that cost almost $6,000,000, expensive homes, commercial investment property, a pizzaparlor, cars, vacations and six-figure memberships at the Breakers and the Mar-a-Lago Club, allwholly unrelated to the creation of jobs at the Palm House Hotel, and all in violation of EB-5regulations,10. Virtually none of the OPHLs’ funds were used to renovate and develop the PalmHouse Hotel, no EB-5 jobs were created and no EB-5 visas were issued to any of the OPHLs. Thisis par for the course with the EB-5 projects in which Walsh and his regional centers have beeninvolved, as only a handful of the dozens of people investing with Walsh have ever received EB-41178357v.15 immigration benefits (or have any hope of receiving them) from a project in which he has beeninvolved.11, | The Palm House Enterprise solicited and obtained EB-5 investors through 2015from Brazil and elsewhere, even after it was clear to those involved with its operation that no jobswould ever be created for EB-5 benefits. Compounding matters further, the Bad Actors kept theOPHLs in the dark, engaged in a practice of lulling, and used the legal system to placate the OPHLsand to cover up their conduct by bringing neutered, passive claims against one another. While thismay have given the appearance -- to the press and to the courts -- that justice was being pursued,in reality the legal “actions” did nothing to right the wrongs or return the funds, and were controlledby the Bad Actors using the stolen funds of the EB-5 investors, As a result, those actions,purportedly to help and on behalf of the victims, actually hurt them and served as obstacles to theirattempts to obtain visas, discover what happened, and ultimately seek redress. Meanwhile, thoselegal “actions” served to perpetuate the Palm House Enterprise, and allowed the Bad Actors toshamelessly box out the victims while they continued to dissipate the assets.12. On top of this, Walsh with the approval of several of the Bad Actors and othersinvolved in the Palm House Enterprise, actually corresponded with EB-5 investors and issued pressreleases at the same to tell them that all was well with their investments and that legal action wasnot necessary to protect their interests, when at the same time the Palm House Enterprise continuedto facilitate the self-dealing and wrongdoing of those in control of its operations and finances,including predicate acts of several of the Bad Actors.13. The OPHLs come to this Court with clean hands, are entitled to equitable tolling ofall statutes of limitation to the extent necessary to facilitate justice, and seek injunctions freezingand preserving what remains of their funds, to dissolve and pierce the limited partnership and anyother entities that have been or continue to be used to perpetrate fraud on the OPHLs and others,and to enter all appropriate orders so that they can pursue their rights against all persons that51178357v.1received stolen funds, benefited from stolen funds, and/or actively conspired with or aided andabetted those that did.14, The Palm House Enterprise operated as follows:(a) The Bad Actors preyed on EB-5 investors seeking a path to United States residencyfor themselves and their minor children,(b) The Palm House Enterprise fraudulently obtained $500,000, plus $40,000-$60,000in administrative fees and “legal fees” from each EB-5 investor through the sale ofalleged interests in Palm House Hotel, LLLP, a Florida limited liability partnershipthat would be involved in the development of the Palm House Hotel, claiming thatthe investment would qualify them under the EB-5 program administered by UnitedStates Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”),(c) The Bad Actors materially, indeed crucially, represented, among other things, that:1178357v.1@ There was a 100% guaranty for the return of the OPHLs’ investment andfees in the event their 1-526 petition is denied;Gi) 100% of the OPHLs’ funds would be held in escrow until their Form 1-526immigration petitions were approved by USCIS;ii) A “limited number” of 79 equity interests would be sold in Palm HouseHotel, LLLP at the price of $500,000 each, plus $40,000-$60,000 inadministrative fees;(iv) | The OPHLs’ funds would be exclusively invested in the Palm HouseHotel to create both direct and indirect jobs by helping to finish therenovation and development, which was near completion;(v) The Palm House Hotel would be open for business by the “Season” of2013/2014, and was 80-90% completed prior to the OPHLs’ investments;(vi) The funds would create 930 jobs, more than the required 790 full-timejobs for the offering;(vii) The OPHLs’ funds would be the third and final source of funds. The EB-5 funds were in addition to an equity investment by the developer inexcess of $22,000,000 and a bank loan (by a bank that had done full duediligence justifying such a loan) in excess of $29,000,000;(viii) The OPHLs’ funds would be held in escrow, and were not yet needed,because the developer’s investment in excess of $22,000,000 and a bankloan in excess of $29,000,000 was being used for construction andrenovation;(ix) | The OPHLs’ funds would not be taken from the escrow account, andwould not be used, unless and until the developer’s investment in excess6(@)1178357v.1of $22,000,000 and the bank funds in excess of $29,000,000 had beenused at the project;(x) The real property at issue was currently worth $110,000,000-$137,000,000(the current value representation varied, depending on what the BadActors believed a particular Plaintiff wanted to hear) before completion,which made the investment “one of the safest EB-5 offerings from a JobCreation and Investment position;”(xi) 1-526 immigration petitions for the Palm House EB-5 Offering had alreadybeen approved by USCIS for the initial investors;(xii) An insurance policy was purchased by the Developer that guaranteed thatconstruction of the Palm House Hotel project would be completed;(xiii) The local government guaranteed that construction of the Palm HouseHotel project would be completed, and that this would be the last 5-starhotel property they would allow on Palm Beach;(xiv) The developer, Non-Party Robert Matthews, was a famous real estatedeveloper in the United States;(xv) Each investor’s investment would be fully secured by the real property atissue and by the State of Florida pursuant to a UCC form. As there wouldbe 79 rooms and 79 investors, each investor would be given a UCCsecurity interest in an individual room; and(xvi) Donald Trump and Bill Clinton would serve on the Palm House Hoteladvisory board, would assist with any issues related to construction, andwould also play a key role in recruiting celebrities and dignitaries to theclub, Celebrities such as Tony Bennett, Celine Dion, Bill Koch, and EricSchmidt were already members of the hotel club.The Bad Actors targeted EB-5 investors with children between the ages of 18 and21 because, under the EB-5 program, applicants have the right to apply for a greencard for themselves, their spouse, and unmarried children under 21. Once theinvestor’s funds were stolen and time continued to pass without the issuance of an1-526 petition approval, the Bad Actors would use the fact that the investor’s childhad “aged out” to silence the investor, perpetrate the continuing fraud, and preventthe investor from seeking redress or judicial assistance. The Bad Actors threatenedthe EB-5 investors that, if the Palm House EB-5 Offering was interfered with orterminated, because the investor’s child was no longer under 21, they would nolonger be able to obtain a green card through their parent and would need to obtaintheir own EB-5 visa through at an additional cost of $500,000.As to any Plaintiff brave enough to question or demand the return of theirinvestment, they were fraudulently told that all was well, that additional appeals ofthe application process were in place, that the country’s foremost immigrationattorney had been hired to prosecute the appeals, and that all was well with theconstruction of the hotel, thereby further lulling the OPHLs and falsely allowingthe Bad Actors to deny any rights to reimbursement. In truth, of course, the money7was gone, no jobs were created, the federal government had closed the appeals, theimmigration attorney was not retained to prosecute any appeals and the 1-526immigrant petitions were never issued.15, The representations made to induce the OPHLs’ investments into the Palm HouseEnterprise were mostly lies, calculated to induce investments by needy, trusting, unsuspectingforeigners with $500,000 to pursue a life for themselves and their children with more opportunitiesthan those afforded to them in China.16. The 100% guaranty signed by Defendant Black on behalf of USREDA was notworth the paper it was printed on. The OPHLs’ I-526s, all of which contained information thatwas known or should have been known to be false by Attorney Derrico and others at USREDAand SARC, and uncovered by KK-PB Financial, LLC (under the control of Defendant GlennStraub) in the course of its due diligence, were all denied, yet their funds were never returned.17. Instead of holding the OPHLs’ funds in escrow or reserving them until their Form1-526 immigration petitions were approved, the funds were stolen and distributed through the PalmHouse Enterprise among several of the Bad Actors and others.18. The conspirators involved in the Palm House Enterprise did not sell 79 purportedequity interests in Palm House Hotel, LLLP. Despite registering this offering for only 79 units,they perpetrated this fraud on over 90 unsuspecting EB-5 investors.19. | The OPHLs’ funds were not exclusively used to help finish the renovation anddevelopment of the Palm House Hotel. Instead, the funds were used for unlawful purposes.20. The hotel was nowhere near completion, let alone anywhere close to being able toopen for business by the “Season” of 2013/2014. As of the filing of the Complaint, it remained adangerous nuisance and a desolate construction wasteland, accruing local fines of $2,000 per day.21. The OPHLs’ funds were not used to create 10 full-time jobs for each $500,000advanced, which was the only purpose for the funds to come to the United States. Further, the fact1178357v.1that over 90, as opposed to 79 interests were sold, prevented that from occurring even if the projectwas not a complete charade.22. The OPHLs’ funds were not in addition to an equity investment by the developerin excess of $22,000,000 and a bank loan in excess of $29,000,000. There was no bank loan, therewas no developer’s equity, and there was no other source of funds for the Palm House Enterprise.23. The real property was not worth $110,000,000-$137,000,000. Indeed, the propertyhad been purchased out of foreclosure for $10,000,100, and was described by a court-appointedreceiver as “circling the drain.”24, No I-526s were ever approved by USCIS for the Palm House EB-5 Offering. Whilethe Bad Actors had provided a written notice of approval for the project, the notice was fraudulentand did not relate to the Palm House EB-5 Offering.25. There was no insurance policy that guaranteed the completion of construction ofthe Palm House Hotel project. The Bad Actors had fraudulently represented that certaindocumentation was an American surety bond guaranteeing performance when, in reality, it wasnot.26. The local government never guaranteed the completion of construction of the PalmHouse Hotel or certified it as a 5-star property. Instead, the local government was imposingsignificant fines against the property. 727. Non-Party Robert Matthews is not a famous real estate developer in the UnitedStates, He was (and still is) instead in massive debt and had a history of questionable financialdealings in the past with, among others, Glenn Straub both in a Massachusetts hotel project severalyears ago and in the foreclosure of the Matthews’ home in Nantucket.28. The OPHLs’ investments were not fully secured by the real property or the State ofFlorida. In fact, a secret, unrecorded mortgage in the amount of $27,468,750 was granted to theprior developer of the project in August 2013 who no less than three times waived due diligence91178357v.1on the project and Matthews, knowing well that uncovering the panoply of wrongdoing byMatthews while EB-5 funds were raised would cause the Palm House Enterprise to collapse.29. To that end, the mortgage was not recorded until March 28, 2014 -- seven (7)months after it was granted -- and after almost all EB-5 investors had undertaken their duediligence and wired their investments for the project. A mortgage to secure the OPHLs’ interestin the real property was not recorded until October 2014, after whatever equity existed in theproject had been subsumed by the prior developer’s secret mortgage.30. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are not on the Palm House Hotel advisory board,and there is no such board.THE PARTIES AND NATURE OF THE ACTION 31. This action involves, among other things, common law fraud, theft, conspiracy, andbreach of fiduciary duty that was perpetrated on the OPHLs to obtain each of their investmentsand “administrative fees” of $500,000 and $40,000-$60,000, respectively.32. This action also relates to the unlawful conduct of additional defendants who,among other things, (i) aided and abetted the Bad Actors in their acts of fraud and theft; (ii) wereunjustly enriched by their unauthorized receipt of the OPHLs’ funds; (iii) were the recipients offraudulent transfers; or (iv) were otherwise independently engaged in unlawful acts.33. The OPHLs were fraudulently induced to each invest $500,000, plus $40,000-$60,000 in administrative fees, based on the representations made by Joseph Walsh, Walsh Jr.,Payne, Detrico, Boden, SARC, USREDA and Walsh Asia. Other Bad Actors undertook efforts toconceal their wrongful conduct or assistance, aiding and/or abetting of such conduct.34. Palm House Hotel, LLLP is a Florida Limited Liability Limited Partnership withits principal place of business in Palm Beach County, Florida formed on January 9, 2013. TheOPHLs were fraudulently induced to each invest $500,000 into Palm House in exchange for an101178357.interest, the false promises of United States EB-5 visas, and the ultimate return of their investment,with interest.35, Walsh is an individual who, upon information and belief, was a resident of PalmBeach County, Florida at the time all acts complained of herein occurred and is otherwise swi juris.On information and belief, Walsh resides in Asia or Australia but maintains his U.S, citizenshipand a Palm Beach County residential address, Walsh served as a general partner of Palm Houseuntil July 2016, and owns and/or operates and/or controls SARC, USREDA and Walsh Asia. Uponinformation and belief, Walsh was the criminal mastermind behind the Palm House Enterprise,and organized all the players and their respective roles. Walsh and his accomplices made orassisted in making, false representations to the OPHLs that induced them to provide and continuewith their investments. Further, despite not being incorporated to provide legal services, Walsharranged for an in-house attorney previously involved in a massive EB-5 fraud to “draft projectlegal documents” and provide legal services through USREDA to the OPHLs in connection withthe processing of their EB-5 visa applications. This served several purposes for the Bad Actors inthat outside lawyers would not be hired by the non-English speaking EB-5 investors to furtherquestion or examine the Palm House Enterprise. Walsh has since been named in an enforcementaction by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) concerning his conductin the Palm House Enterprise. See Exhibit “1” annexed liereto,36. Walsh Jr. is an individual who resides in Palm Beach County, Florida and isotherwise sai juris, Walsh Jr. is the son of Walsh and owns and/or operates and/or controls SARC,USREDA and Walsh Asia. Walsh Jr. and his accomplices made or assisted in making, falserepresentations to the OPHLs that induced them to provide and continue with their investments.On information and belief, the OPHLs believe Walsh Jr. has set up bank accounts for Walsh Asiaand entities under its control in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia.iW1178357V.137. Payne is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Illinois and isotherwise sui juris, Payne is an attorney, served as a general partner of Palm House until July2016, and owns and/or operates and/or controls SARC and USREDA. Payne and his accomplicesmade or assisted in making, false representations to the OPHLs that induced them to provide theirinvestments. Payne is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because he operated, conducted,engaged in, or carried on a business or business venture in this state and/or committed a tortiousact within this state and/or is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within the State ofFlorida.38. Boden is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Hong Kongand continues to associate himself with Walsh Asia, and is otherwise sui juris. As he states on hisbiography on www.linkedin.com (see Exhibit “2” annexed hereto), Boden served as a ManagingMember of USREDA, de facto or otherwise, from 2013 - 2016 while registered with Silver LakeCapital and Third Seven, New York based FINRA member broker-dealers, On information andbelief, Boden violated FINRA rules as he did not disclose his involvement with USREDA to hisbroker-dealer because if he did, the frauds of the Palm House Enterprise would have been clearlyevident to them. See Exhibit “3” annexed hereto. Boden as a non-disclosed principal ofUSREDA and his accomplices made or assisted in making, false representations to the OPHLsthat induced them to provide their investments. Boden is subject to personal jurisdiction in Floridabecause he operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business or business venture in thisstate and/or committed a tortious act within this state and/or is engaged in substantial and notisolated activity within the State of Florida.39. Silver Leaf and Third Seven (collectively the “Broker-Dealer Defendants”) arebroker-dealers licensed to conduct business in the State of Florida and FINRA members, AsFINRA members, they had obligations to supervise Boden in connection with his conduct ofsecurities business on behalf of USREDA under FINRA Rule 3270, among other rules, and121178357v.1perform due diligence on securities in which Boden was involved in the placement or sale. Atpresent, Silver Leaf is named in FINRA Disciplinary Proceeding No. 20140422606902, whichaddresses alleged supervisory failures in connections with payments to unregistered finders.40. Derrico is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in Florida and isotherwise swi juris. A member of the California Bar but not the Florida Bar, Derrico served as theSenior Immigration Counsel for USREDA and SARC and “drafted project legal documents” asregistered in-house counsel at all times relevant to this proceeding. Prior to joining SARC andUSREDA, Derrico served as immigration counsel for the Chicago Convention Center EB-5project, which to date has been one the largest EB-5 frauds in history. Derrico and his accomplicesmade or assisted in making, false representations to the OPHLs that induced them to provide theirinvestments. Dertico is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because he operated, conducted,engaged in, or carried on a business or business venture in this state and/or committed a tortiousact within this state and/or is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within the State ofFlorida.41. Black is an individual who resides in Florida and is otherwise sui juris. Black is anindividual who served as a Managing Member of USREDA, was a 1% owner of USREDA andexecuted the guarantys for each investor lured to place funds with the Palm House Enterprise.While Black purportedly assisted in “kicking out’ people from the Palm House property oncediscovering the misuse of funds, he did not undertake any action to communicate with the OPHLsor other EB-5 investors as to the effectiveness of the guarantys he signed. Black also was aninstigator of the “circular” litigation that was intended to lull the OPHLs and other EB-5 investorsthat actions were being taken on their behalf to protect their money when in fact the litigation wasyet another scheme to further the Palm House Enterprise.42. SARC is a Florida Limited Liability Company with its principal place of businessin Palm Beach County, Florida formed on June 10, 2010. SARC is a regional center approved by131178357v.1USCIS. Walsh, Walsh Jr., Boden and Payne represented to the OPHLs that SARC was the generalpartner of Palm House. SARC made or assisted in making, false representations to the OPHLsthat induced them to provide their investments. SARC was intended to, and did, influence theOPHLs to trust and rely upon it rather than hire outside advisors who might ask difficult questions,make difficult demands, or discover the fraudulent scheme orchestrated through the Palm HouseEnterprise.43, USREDA is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place ofbusiness in Palm Beach County, Florida formed on February 3, 2011. USREDA purported to actas a law firm (arguably impermissible under Florida Bar rules) and contracted to provide legalimmigration services to the OPHLs regarding the EB-5 visa program. USREDA guaranteed theapproval of any 1-526 application it completed and the return of all service fees in the event ofdenial. USREDA made or assisted in making, false representations to the OPHLs that inducedthem to provide their investments. USREDA was intended to, and did, influence the OPHLs totrust and rely upon it rather than hire outside advisors and attorneys who might ask difficultquestions, make difficult demands, or discover the fraudulent scheme that was being perpetrated.In reality, USREDA was a front that Walsh, Walsh Jr., Boden, Derrico and Payne used to commitand further the fraud, and was used to launder/hide money once the OPHLs sent their investmentsto the fake escrow account. Millions of dollars of the OPHLs’ funds were transferred to andthrough USREDA, and such amounts had no correlation whatsoever to the purported legal servicesit agreed to provide or the purported fees for same.44, Walsh Asia is a Hong Kong entity with offices in, among other places, London,England. Walsh Asia purports to be a premier provider of citizenship by investment programs,and through which Walsh and Walsh, Jr. made or assisted in making, false representations toinduce EB-5 investors to provide and continue with their investments. Walsh Asia is subject topersonal jurisdiction in Florida because it operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business141178357V.1or business venture in this state and/or committed a tortious act within this state and/or is engagedin substantial and not isolated activity within the State of Florida and/or operated merely as acorporate front for the fraudulent actions of Walsh and Walsh Jr.45. Palm House, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that was formed on orabout December 5, 2012 to complete the renovations and development of the Palm House Hotel.Upon approval of the OPHLs’ I-526s, Palm House was supposed to loan the OPHLs’ money toPalm House LLC so that it could complete the development of the hotel and pay off the purported$29,000,000 bank loan. In return, Palm House LLC was supposed to obtain a first mortgage onthe real property that fully secured the debt.46. Gerry Matthews is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides inConnecticut, and is otherwise swi juris. Gerry Matthews is the brother of Non-Party RobertMatthews, an owner of Palm House LLC, and was instrumental in allowing Non-Party RobertMatthews to access and steal several million dollars of the OPHLs’ money. Gerry Matthews issubject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because he operated, conducted, engaged in, or carriedon a business or business venture in this state and/or committed a tortious act within this state.Gerry Matthews has been indicted for criminal conduct in connection with the Palm HouseEnterprise (See Exhibit “4” annexed hereto).47. Palm House PB, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company that, uponinformation and belief, was formed on or about February 28, 2012 for the purpose of hiding andstealing the OPHLs’ money. One or more bank accounts were opened in the name of Palm HousePB, LLC, and the OPHLs’ stolen money was transferred to such accounts and then used topurchase a 151 foot yacht, among other things.48. Mirabia is a Delaware Limited Liability Company formed on or about May 16,2014. Upon information and belief, Non-Party Robert Matthews used this entity to hide and stealthe OPHLs’ money and to purchase investment property near the Palm House Hotel.151178357V.149. Bonaventure is a Florida Limited Liability Company formed on November 11,2011 that, upon information and belief, Maria a/k/a Mia Matthews used to hide and steal theOPHLs’ money. On information and belief, Miami attorney Alan Burger assisted Mia Matthewsin the formation of Bonaventure.50. Alibi is a Delaware Limited Liability Company formed on or about June 18, 2014.Maria a/k/a Mia Matthews used this company to hide and steal the OPHLs’ money and to purchasea 151’ yacht that cost approximately $6,000,000.51, Evans is an attorney based in Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Evans and his law firm,Leslie Robert Evans & Associates, P.A., took possession of the OPHLs’ funds in their trust accountafter they were stolen from the fake escrow account at PNC Bank. The Evans Defendants thendistributed the OPHLs’ funds to persons and accounts selected by the conspirators, and paidthemselves compensation to do so. Evans has since been indicted for mail fraud and wire fraud inconnection with his conduct in the Palm House Enterprise. (See Exhibit “5” annexed hereto).52. Laudano is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Palm BeachCounty, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris, Laudano held himself out as the general contractor onthe Palm House Hotel project, and entered into a construction contract to build the project.Laudano received and accepted the OPHLs’ stolen funds, and aided and abetted Non-Party RobertMatthews and Maria a/k/a Mia Matthews in their theft of millions of dollars of the OPHLs’ money.Laudano was indicted for his wrongful conduct in connection with the Palm House Enterprise andpled guilty to the charges. (See Exhibits “6” and Exhibit “7” annexed hereto).53. NHCS is a company owned and operated by Laudano formed on or about May 15,2006. NHCS entered into a construction contract to build the Palm House Hotel project. Laudanoused this entity to receive, accept, and steal millions of dollars of the OPHLs’ money,54, NJL and Botticelli are entities that Laudano used to steal the OPHLs’ money forthe purpose of purchasing a mansion in Connecticut on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Non-161178357v.1Party Robert Matthews and Maria a/k/a Mia Matthews. NJL was formed on or about February 3,2014.55. Botticelli is a Florida Limited Liability Company and the managing member ofNIL, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Craig Galle, long time counsel for the former ownerof 160 Royal Palm LLC, on information and belief assisted in the formation of Botticelli in January2012,56. KK-PB is a Florida Limited Liability Company owned and/or controlled byDefendant Glenn Straub, the former owner of 160 Royal Palm LLC, which owns the real propertyupon which the Palm House Hotel is located. KK-PB was formed on or about August 28, 2013,which is about the time Defendants Straub, Walsh and Non-Party Matthews together decided tofollow through on the scheme that would become the Palm House Enterprise. On information andbelief, his long-time attorney Craig Galle assisted in the formation of KK-PB. Waiving duediligence on Matthews and the property (see Exhibit “8” annexed hereto), Defendant Glenn Straubsold his interest in 160 Royal Palm LLC in August 2013, and received a mortgage on the RealProperty for $27,468,750 in favor of KK-PB as purported consideration. However, the mortgagewas not recorded until seven (7) months later, on March 28, 2014, which created the falseimpression that the Palm House Hotel was unencumbered by such a debt and that the OPHLswould, indeed, obtain a first mortgage on the real property that fully secured their investment oncethe purported bank loan was paid off. Further, KK-PB and ultimately Straub improperly benefitedfrom the scheme by receiving transfers of the OPHLs’ stolen money. Despite claims of themortgage scheme being a “typical Florida transaction” and innocence and non-involvement in thePalm House Enterprise, Defendant Glenn Straub and his entities were still “doing business” withthe Matthews family well into 2018.57. Maria a/k/a Mia Matthews is an individual who, upon information and belief,resides in Palm Beach County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Maria a/k/a Mia Matthews is171178357v.1the wife of Non-Party Robert Matthews and, along with him, stole several million dollars of theOPHLs’ money, using it to purchase a 151’ yacht, among other things. Mia Matthews has beennamed in a superseding indictment in the matter involving her husband (See Exhibit “9” annexedhereto).NON-PARTIES58. 160 Royal Palm LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company formed in 2009 andis arguably an owner of the real property located at 160 Royal Palm Way, Palm Beach, Florida,upon which the Palm House Hotel is located (the “Real Property”). This company is ownedentirely by Palm House, LLC, which purchased the membership interests from Glenn Straub in2013. As purported consideration, 160 Royal Palm LLC granted a $27,468,750 mortgage on theReal Property to Glenn Straub’s entity, KK-PB Financial LLC, which was kept secret and notrecorded until March 28, 2014, after most of the OPHLs had conducted their due diligence andmade their investments. 160 Royal Palm is now in bankruptcy (see Exhibit “10” annexed hereto).59. | Non-Party Robert Matthews is an individual who, upon information and belief,resides in Palm Beach County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Non-Party Robert Matthewsrepresented himself as the developer of the Palm House Hotel project, and claimed to be in chargeof Palm House, LLC and the construction and renovation of the Palm House Hotel. Non-PartyRobert Matthews stole several million dollars of the OPHLs’ money, using it to purchase realproperty and a 151” yacht with his wife (which he named ALIBI), among other things. Non-PartyRobert Matthews helped prepare the marketing materials that were provided to the OPHLs toinduce their investments. Matthews has since been indicted for mail and wire fraud (See Exhibit“5,” supra). He has since sought bankruptcy protection (see Exhibit “11” annexed hereto).JURISDICTION60. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interest, attorneys’fees and costs.181178357v.161. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 605 of the Florida Statutes.62. Venue is Palm Beach County, Florida is proper because a substantial amount theactivities giving rise to this action occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida, Additionally, SARC,USREDA, Walsh, Walsh Jr., and Laudano are residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, andtransacted business in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the other individual Defendants eitherreside in Palm Beach County, Florida, transacted in substantial business activities in Palm BeachCounty, Florida, had an agent in Palm Beach County, Florida or were licensed to conduct businessin Florida.63. The OPHLs have retained the undersigned counsel to represent them in this actionand have agreed and obligated to pay a reasonable fee for their services.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS EB-5 Visa Program in General64, The Immigrant Investor Program, more commonly known as the EB-5 program,was created by the Immigration Act of 1990. Congress established the EB-5 program to stimulatethe U.S. economy by giving immigrant EB-5 investors the opportunity to permanently live andwork in the United States after they have invested in a new commercial enterprise (“NCE”). Inthe case of an NCE that is located in a Targeted Employment Area (“TEA”), i.e., either a rural areaor an area beset by high unemployment, the required equity investment need only be $500,000.65. In 1993, Congress created the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program to increase interestin the EB-5 visa program. This new pilot program established EB-5 Regional Centers (“RegionalCenters”), which are entities that receive special designation from USCIS to administer EB-5investments and create jobs. Public and private entities may apply to the USCIS for approval asan EB-5 Regional Center.66. EB-5 visa programs administered by a Regional Center provide more flexibility,because the immigrant investor who invests in such a program is permitted to take credit not only191178357v.1for direct jobs created in the NCE but also “indirect jobs” created outside the NCE in a job creatingenterprise (“JCE”), such as a construction contracting firm that builds an improvement for theNCE or the nearby creation of jobs through other entities that will develop to service the businessbeing created. In addition, the immigrant investor need not handle the day-to-day management ofthe NCE or even necessarily live in the region where the NCE is located.67. By necessity, investments into an EB-5 program are “closed-ended,” available onlyto a specified number of EB-5 investors, and that number is tied to the number of direct or indirectjobs created by the investment. If too few jobs are created with the money invested, the immigrantwill not be able to become a permanent resident in the United States.EB-5 Practice and Procedure68. Under the EB-5 program, the immigrant investor first applies for an immigrant visaby submitting a Form 1-526, Immigrant Petition for Alien Entrepreneur. USCIS’ approval of theForm I-526 is conditioned upon the immigrant’s investment of the requisite amount of money inan NCE that satisfies the applicable legal requirements. Upon approval of the Form I-526 petition,the immigrant investor may either: (1) file the appropriate form to adjust their status to aconditional permanent resident within the United States; or (2) file an application to obtain an EB-5 visa for admission to the United States. Upon the approval of the application or upon entry intothe United States with an EB-5 immigrant visa, the EB-5 investor and derivative family memberswill be granted conditional permanent residence for a two-year period.69. To remove the conditional resident status, the immigrant investor must file a Form1-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions, ninety days before the two-yearanniversary of the granting of the EB-S investor’s conditional resident status, USCIS’ approval ofthe Form I-829 is conditioned upon proof that the immigrant investor’s investment as reported onthe 1-526 has created at least ten full-time jobs in the NCE or JCE. If an insufficient number ofjobs was created, the foreign national is subject to removal from the United States.201178357v.1||tEB-5 Program at the Palm House Hotel70. SARC held itself out as a Regional Center, headquartered in Palm Beach County,Florida, and claimed to specialize in investment-based immigration services with association ofother affiliated entities under common control.71. SARC was approved by USCIS to serve as a Regional Center, which allowed EB-5 investors to take credit for direct and indirect jobs and not be involved in the day-to-day operationof the NCE,72, SARC was operated and controlled by Walsh, Walsh, Jr., and Payne.73, USREDA was an entity that claimed to specialize in providing legal immigrationservices regarding the EB-5 visa program, held itself out as a law firm, and required clients to signengagement letters for its services. It charged clients $15,000 USD to file an 1-526 petition and anadditional $5,000 USD to file an I-829 petition.74, USREDA was operated and controlled by Walsh, Walsh, Jr., Payne and Boden.75. Walsh Asia held itself out as an expert in citizenship by investment programsthrough promotional materials, advertisements in captive magazines and presentations, with theexpertise, knowledge, and track record of success to provide successful immigration outcomes.76. Walsh Asia was operated and controlled by Walsh and Walsh, Jr, managed byBoden in Hong Kong (under supervision of the Broker-Dealer Defendants), and maintained bankaccounts in Hong Kong and, on information and belief, other Asian jurisdictions.77. USREDA, SARC and Walsh Asia were all instrumentalities of the Palm HouseEnterprise.78. During solicitations for investment in the Palm House Enterprise, the OPHLs wereprovided with three (3) items:(a) Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQ”). An exemplar of the FAQ provided tothe OPHLs is annexed hereto as Exhibit “12,”211178357v.1(b) Sales Brochure (the “Sales Brochure”). An exemplar of the Sales Brochureprovided to the OPHLs is annexed hereto as Exhibit “13.”; and(c) Signature Booklet (the “Signature Booklet”), An exemplar of the SignatureBooklet is annexed hereto as Exhibit “14.” Collectively, the FAQ, Sales Brochure,and Signature Booklet will be referred to as the “Offering Documents.”79, While the Signature Booklet contained signature pages for a Private PlacementMemorandum (the “PPM”) and a Palm House limited partnership agreement (the “Palm HouseLimited Partnership Agreement”), the OPHLs were not provided with copies of the full documentsuntil after they made their investments. Exemplars of the PPMs and Limited PartnershipAgreements provided to the OPHLs are annexed hereto as Exhibit “15” and Exhibit “16,”respectively,80. Additionally, during the Palm House Hotel solicitations, the OPHLs were providedwith a writing claiming that an 1-526 petition for an early Palm House Hotel investor had beenapproved by USCIS, thereby assuring the OPHLs that, if they invested in the project, they toowould soon obtain approval (the “USCIS Approval”). A true and accurate copy of the USCISApproval is annexed hereto as Exhibit “17.”81. The representations in the Offering Documents were originally made by Walsh,Walsh Jr., Payne, Boden (under the supervision of the Broker-Dealer Defendants), Matthews,SARC, USREDA, and Walsh Asia and, on information and belief, with the review and approvalof Derrico. Given Boden’s status as a FINRA registrant with the Broker-Dealer Defendants, eachof them reviewed the Offering Documents given their bedrock obligations to do so under FINRAtules.82. The representations in the PPM, Palm House Limited Partnership Agreement, andUSCIS Approval were originally made by Walsh, Walsh Jr., Payne, Boden, SARC, USREDA, andWalsh Asia and, on information and belief, with the review and approval of Derrico. GivenBoden’s status as a FINRA registrant with the Broker-Dealer Defendants, each of them reviewedthese documents as well, given their bedrock obligations to do so under FINRA rules.221178357v.183. SARC, USREDA, Walsh Asia, Walsh, Walsh Jr., Payne, Boden (under thesupervision of the Broker-Dealer Defendants), Derrico and Non-Party Robert Matthews each madeor assisted in making, knowingly false representations to induce investments into the project.84. Further, SARC, USREDA, Walsh Asia, Walsh, Walsh Jr., Payne, Boden (whileunder supervision of the Broker-Dealer Defendants), Derrico and Non-Party Robert Matthewseach withheld material information that they had a duty to disclose.85. Each limited partnership unit in Palm House required a minimum investment of$500,000, plus an administrative fee of $40,000-$60,000.86. Any subscription funds received from the OPHLs were to be held in a specialescrow account or, if they were to be used in connection with the project pending I-526 approval,they were to be reserved for in some manner in the event that the funds needed to be returned.87. Among the many misrepresentations, the OPHLs were promised that their monieswould be held in the escrow account and released to Palm House, LLC only if and when theirJ-526s were approved by USCIS (the “Escrow Representation”).88. The Escrow Representation was made to the OPHLs several times, and in severaldocuments.89. The Escrow Representation was made to the OPHLs in the PPM. See Exiibit “15”at p. 15, 37, 38, and 41. 790. The Escrow Representation was made to the OPHLs in the Limited PartnershipAgreement. See Exhibit “16” at p. 6.91. The Escrow Representation was made in the loan agreement between Palm Houseand Palm House LLC (the “Loan Documents,” annexed hereto as Exhibit “18”), where PalmHouse, LLC, on the one hand, and Walsh, SARC, and Palm House, on the other hand, agreed thatthe loan was dependent on USCIS’ approval of the OPHLs’ J-526s. See Exhibit “18” at p.1.1178357v.192.If an investor's I-526 application was denied by USCIS, the investor was promisedthat they would receive their money back within 90 days of the official denial notice.93.There were many other knowingly false representations in the Offering Documents,including but not limited to:(a)(b)(c)@)©)®(g)(h)0)@(k)Oo()(n)(0)1178357v.1There was a 100% guaranty for the return of the OPHLs’ investment and feessigned by Defendant Ryan Black in the event their 1-526 petition is denied;There would be a maximum of 79 limited partnership units offered in Palm House;They were seeking, in total, a $39,500,000 investment into Palm House, which wasequal to the maximum of 79 limited partnership units being offered at $500,000each;USREDA guaranteed the approval of any 1-526 application it completed and thereturn of all service fees in the event of denial;SARC was the general partner of Palm House,The developer had already invested $22,000,000 of their own equity into theproject;There was a bridge loan from a bank, in the amount of $29,500,000, to allowcontinuation of the construction whi

Related Contentin Palm Beach County

Case

WEST ATLANTIC HOLDCO LLC V MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICENTER LLC

Aug 30, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008400-XXXA-MB

Case

Roxanna Rasekhi VS Comprehensive Pain Care of South Florida LLC

Sep 03, 2024 |Gregory M. Keyser |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008371-XXXA-MB

Case

SILBERSTEIN, ALLAN V USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 29, 2024 |Carolyn R. Bell |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008330-XXXA-MB

Case

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK V MAYNARDES, JOHNNY B

Sep 05, 2024 |Luis Delgado |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008352-XXXA-MB

Case

PADRON, AMADOR V FUAW LLC

Aug 27, 2024 |Bradley G. Harper |PREMISES LIABILITY COMMERCIAL |50-2024-CA-008398-XXXA-MB

Case

CUSTOM PET INC V TDBBS LLC

Sep 02, 2024 |James W. Sherman |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008342-XXXA-MB

Case

TD BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION V KEY VISION REALTY LLC

Aug 30, 2024 |Reid P. Scott, II |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008315-XXXA-MB

Case

COLUMNA INC V GONZALEZ, ROLANDO

Aug 29, 2024 |Maxine D. Cheesman |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008401-XXXA-MB

Case

American Express National Bank VS Salvatore Spedale

Sep 04, 2024 |James W. Sherman |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008426-XXXA-MB

Ruling

LIMELIGHT INTERNATIONAL, LTD. VS ONEWORLD APPAREL, LLC

Sep 04, 2024 |22STCV38443

Case Number: 22STCV38443 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 9-4-24 Case #22STCV38443 (lead case related to 23STCV24029) Trial Date: 1-27-25 PROTECTIVE ORDER MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant, Sylvia Huynh RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, RLoom, LLC fka OneWorld Apparel, LLC RELIEF REQUESTED Motion for Protective Order SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiff Limelight International Ltd., (Limelight) a Hong Kong based company authorized to conduct business in California alleges an unpaid balance of $586,962.09 owed by Defendant OneWorld Apparel, LLC aka One World Apparel, LLC. On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed its complaint for Breach of Contract and Common Counts (three causes of action). On January 27, 2023, RLoom, LLC fka OneWorld Apparel, LLC, filed a cross-complaint against Limelight International, Ltd., Catherine Yan aka Ning Yan, and Sylvia Ha Huynh, for 1. Fraud (Inducement) 2. Fraud (Concealment) 3. Conspiracy to Defraud 4. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty 5. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty 6. Civil Theft (Penal Code § 496) 7. Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200) and 8. Rescission. On April 18, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the cross-complaint with leave to amend. On May 26, 2023, Cross-Complainants filed a first amended cross-complaint for 1. Fraud 2. Conspiracy to Defraud 3. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty 4. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty 5. Recission/Unjust Enrichment 6. Rescission, and 7. Breach of Contract. On June 22, 2023, Cross-Complainants dismissed the sixth cause of action for Recission. On July 10, 2023, the court overruled the demurrer to the second and fourth causes of action, and sustained the demurrer to the seventh cause of action in the first amended cross-complaint. On July 31, 2023, Cross-Complainants filed a second amended cross-complaint for 1. Fraud 2. Conspiracy to Defraud 3. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty 4. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty 5. Recission/Unjust Enrichment and 6. Breach of Contract. On September 6, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the sixth cause of action with leave to amend. On September 26, 2023, Cross-Complainants filed a third amended cross-complaint for 1. Fraud 2. Conspiracy to Defraud 3. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty 4. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty 5. Recission/Unjust Enrichment and 6. Breach of Contract. Cross-Defendants answered the third amended cross-complaint on October 25, 2023. A Notice of Related Cases was filed on December 14, 2023, with Limelight International, Ltd. v. D. Masin Consulting, LLC, et al. (223STCV24029). RULING: Denied. Cross-Defendant Sylvia Huynh moves for a protective order precluding any deposition unless and until service on Cross-Defendant Catherine Yan is completed, thereby allowing Yan to participate in any deposition session of Yan. Defendant, Cross-Complainant, RLoom, LLC fka OneWorld Apparel, LLC (RLoom) opposes the motion as lacking a valid basis for blocking the right to take the deposition of a party simply based on the possibility of appearing for a second deposition session upon any appearance of Yan. Huynh filed a notice of non-opposition. The opposition contains a proof of service showing electronic service on August 21, 2024. The court finds no basis to dispute the veracity and validity of the proof of service, even counsel if Huynh denies ever receiving the opposition. The court considers therefore the motion. A Court may make any order that justice requires to protect a party from unwanted annoyance, embarrassment or oppression or undue burden and expense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) A deponent may seek that the deposition is not taken at all, the deposition only taken on specified terms and conditions, or only certain matters are allowed for inquiry. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b)(1)(5)(9).) The burden of proof is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for the order he or she seeks. (Fairmont Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) A motion for a protective order shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).) A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) The motion contains a sufficient meet and confer effort. [Declaration of David Palmer, Ex. 9.] Huynh appears in the subject action as an alleged co-conspirator with Yan. Yan remains unserved with the cross-complaint. Huynh requests a protective order until the case is at issue (e.g. service on Yan is completed). The right of Cross-Complainant to conduct discovery remains undisputed. The circumstances require additional considerations, however. On August 5, 2024, the court considered a motion for leave to authorize service in China, due to concerns over delays with efforts to complete service on Yan. It remains unclear as to the progress of efforts for bringing Yan into the action. Regardless, even assuming Cross-Complainants successfully effects service, whether Yan will appear or the clerk will receive a request for entry of a default, remains to be determined. The court can also appreciate a scenario whereby a default would be entered and Yan could seek relief from said default well into the six month deadline for filing, with further delay for obtaining a hearing date on the motion. Such scenarios while not articulated by either party, presents a potentially significant open ended period of the requested protective order before the case becomes at issue, thereby dramatically delaying discovery as to Huynh. The court finds no support for such a potentially broad, unaddressed scenario given the magnitude of uncertainty over the status of Yan. The court in its discretion therefore finds the requested relief too uncertain to justify concerns and considerations over the claimed prejudice of a potential second deposition on an indeterminate date, while all other deadlines for trial completion and adjudication as to all other parties continues. The motion is DENIED. Case Management Conference on November 6, 2024. Three motions to compel further responses to document demands scheduled for October 30, 31, and December 5, 2024, in the related case. Huynh to give notice to all parties.

Ruling

THE TUTORING CENTER FRANCHISEE ASSOCIATION VS THE TUTORING CENTER FRANCHISE CORP.

Sep 03, 2024 |24STCV02849

Case Number: 24STCV02849 Hearing Date: September 3, 2024 Dept: 57 Defendant's demurrer to the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("the FAC") is overruled to the extent that the demurrer is based on the proposition that Plaintiff lacks associational standing to pursue its claims against the Defendant. In the Court's view, the Plaintiff does have associational standing. The demurrer also is overruled to the extent that it is based on the proposition that, even if the Plaintiff has associational standing, the FAC contains insufficient allegations to support the first and fourth causes of action in the FAC. The demurrer to the second and third causes of action is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff's opposition to the demurrer fails to address Defendant's arguments that the FAC contains insufficient allegations to support the second and third causes of action.The Defendant's motion to strike is granted. As requested in that motion, the Court is striking portions of the FAC that seek an order compelling Defendant to update its 2024 Franchise Disclosure Document to include references to Plaintiff. That prayer for relief is moot. The Court also is striking Plaintiff's requests for attorney's fees in connection with the first and fourth causes of action in the FAC. The FAC fails to allege sufficient statutory bases for those attorney's fees requests. Plaintiff shall serve and file its Second Amended Complaint by September 24, 2024.

Ruling

Lyons Magnus, LLC vs. Everest National Insurance Company

Sep 05, 2024 |24CECG01842

Re: Lyons Magnus, LLC v. Everest National Insurance Co. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG01842Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: Applications to Appear pro hac vice If timely requested, oral argument will be entertained Thursday, September 12, 2024.Tentative Ruling: To deny without prejudice.Explanation: The declarations of the two applicants fail to comply with Code of Civil Proceduresection 2015.5. The declarations do not state that they were signed in the State ofCalifornia. Presumably they were signed outside California, given the nature of theapplications and the residence and business addresses of the applicants. Accordingly,the declarations should have been subscribed as follows: “I certify (or declare) underpenalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true andcorrect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5, subd. (b). Simply stating, “I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct,” does not satisfy the statute, and theapplicants’ declarations are therefore inadequate to supply the information necessaryto meet the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: JYH on 9/4/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Ruling

GLEASON vs PNC BANK A NATIONAL ASSOCATION

Sep 05, 2024 |CVSW2406667

GLEASON VS PNC BANK DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY PNCCVSW2406667NATIONAL ASSOCATION BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATIONTentative Ruling: CONTINUE to October 25, 2024, to allow Defendants an opportunityto satisfy their statutory obligation to meet and confer in accordance with CCP §430.41(a). Set an OSC re: failure to prosecute & properly meet and confer on theDemurrer by phone, video conference, or in person, against the Plaintiff, for sanctionsnot to exceed $1,500 and/or striking the Complaint.According to Mr. Gettas’ declaration, Plaintiff has not cooperated with meet and conferefforts. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by telephone, video conference or inperson to fulfill their statutory requirements. As part of the meet and confer process,Defendants shall identify with legal support the basis of the alleged deficiencies in thefirst amended complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff shall provide legal support for her positionthat the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the FAC may beamended to cure any legal insufficiency. The Court further sets an OSC re: failure toprosecute the matter against Plaintiff. If there is a failure to meet and confer, absentgood cause, the court will dismiss the matter at the next hearing.After meeting and conferring, Defendants shall 10 days before the continued hearingdate set forth above do one of the following:1. vacate the hearing on the demurrer and file an answer to the complaint;2. file with the court a declaration stating that the parties have agreed that Plaintiffwill file a second amended complaint before the date set forth above; or3. file with the court a declaration stating the means by which the parties met andconferred and identifying the specific objections in the demurrer that the partieswere unable to resolve.4. File with a court a declaration stating why a meet and confer was notaccomplished.The court will not accept further briefing.The “Reply” brief filed by Plaintiff on 8/21/24 shall be retitled Plaintiff’s “Opposition”Brief.

Ruling

Sep 05, 2024 |CVCV18-0189440

K&S STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC VS. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLANDCase Number: CVCV18-0189440This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. A Notice of Stay of Proceeding was filedon March 1, 2024 reflecting that Defendant William Scott Schroyer was involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.No updated information has been provided. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide theCourt with a status of the bankruptcy.

Ruling

Sep 04, 2024 |CVCV18-0189440

K&S STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC VS. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLANDCase Number: CVCV18-0189440This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. A Notice of Stay of Proceeding was filedon March 1, 2024 reflecting that Defendant William Scott Schroyer was involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.No updated information has been provided. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide theCourt with a status of the bankruptcy.

Ruling

RENOVATE PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JULIA ANNE BODOH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE BRAD CHARLES BODOH AND JULIA ANNE BODOH LIVING TRUST, DATED MARCH 21, 2014, ET AL.

Sep 05, 2024 |24PSCV00506

Case Number: 24PSCV00506 Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 Dept: O Tentative Ruling DEFENDANT JULIA ANNE BODOHS MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION AND FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS is GRANTED; attorney fees are not granted. Background This is a real property case. Plaintiff RENOVATE PROPERTIES, LLC alleges the following against Defendants JULIA ANNE BODOH, as trustee of THE BRAD CHARLES BODOH AND JULIA ANNE BODOH LIVING TRUST, DATED MARCH 21, 2014 (Defendant); THE HEIRS, DEVISEES, AND SUCCESSORS, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, TESTATE AND INTESTATE, OF BRAD CHARLES BODOH: On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff, as buyer, and Defendants, as seller, entered into a written contract for the purchase and sale of the Property, for the purchase price of $910,000 (agreement). The purchase and sale of the property was to close on February 17, 2024. However, despite opening escrow and paying Defendants a $20,000 advance toward the purchase price, Defendants anticipatorily repudiated the agreement by refusing to sell the property. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement as well as a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants from selling the property to anyone else during the pendency of this action. (Complaint ¶17.) On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit for: 1. Breach of Contract 2. Declaratory ReliefOn April 8, 2024, Defendant Bodoh filed an answer. On July 24, 2024, Bodoh/Defendant filed the instant motion. On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed its opposition. On August 28, 2024, Defendant filed a reply along with a response to Plaintiffs evidentiary objections.[1] Legal Standard A¿lis¿pendens¿is a¿recorded instrument¿(Notice of Pending Action), recorded in the office of the county recorder where land is located, that gives¿constructive notice¿of a pending lawsuit affecting title to described real property. (Gale v. Superior Court¿(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1395.) A party to an action who asserts a¿real property claim¿may record a notice of pendency of action in which that real property claim is alleged. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.20.) Anyone having an interest in the property affected by a lis pendens, whether or not a party to the pending lawsuit, may move to expunge the lis pendens any time after it is recorded. (CCP § 405.30.) A lis pendens may be expunged on any of the following grounds: (1) defects in the statutory service and filing requirements; (2) the complaint does not contain a real property claim;[2] (3) the claimant cannot prove the probable validity of the real property claim by a preponderance of the evidence; or (4) adequate relief can be secured to the claimant by the giving of an undertaking. (CCP §§ 405.23, 405.31, 405.32, 405.33; McKnight v. Sup.Ct. (Faber)¿(1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 291, 303 [recognizing defective servicing and filing requirements as grounds for expungement].) Probable validity, with respect to a real property claim, means that it is more likely than not that the claimant will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim. (CCP § 405.32.) The burden to make such a showing is on the lis pendens claimant. (See e.g., J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1, 32-33.) If conflicting evidence is presented, the trial court must weigh the evidence in deciding whether the plaintiff has sustained its burden. (Rutter Group, Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. (9:436.2).) If a showing is made that there is no probable validity of a real property claim, expungement of the lis pendens is mandatory, not discretionary. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.32 [[T]he court shall order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.].) In such a case, no undertaking is required. (Ibid.) As for attorney fees, Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 provides that: The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorneys fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorneys fees and costs unjust. Discussion[3] Defendant moves to expunge the lis pendens on the grounds that the Plaintiff cannot establish the probable validity of the real property claim (i.e., Plaintiff cannot seek specific performance). (Motion p. 2.)[4] For reasons to be discussed below, though Plaintiff offered adequate consideration for the property, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden that it monetary compensation is an inadequate remedy. A. Whether $900,000 is Fair and Reasonable Considering the Circumstances That Defendant Needed Money and Was Unable to Pay the Mortgage? The applicable legal principles, which neither party disputes, is summarized by the court in Lundgren v. Lundgren (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 582 (which both parties cite to): In determining whether consideration was fair and adequate, all circumstances surrounding the transfer of the property as they existed at that time, must be considered. [internal citation omitted.] The fairness or adequacy of the consideration cannot be judged or estimated in relation to events which transpired subsequent to the time of the conveyance; if the consideration was adequate at the time, it is immaterial that subsequent events such as a change in the property value make it inadequate later. [internal citation omitted.] Further, the consideration to be adequate need not amount to the full value of the property. [internal citation omitted.] An adequate consideration does not necessarily mean a price measuring fully up to the value of the property. Such comparison is but a factor to be considered with all of the other facts and circumstances. [internal citations omitted.] The finding of the trial court should not be set aside unless it is clear that it has no sufficient support in the evidence. (Id. at pp. 589-590, emphasis added.) Defendant argues that the price was not just, reasonable or supported by adequate consideration. (Motion p. 4:5-10, citing Civil Code Section 3391 [specific performance cannot be enforced absent adequate consideration].) In support of its position, Defendant relies upon the appraised value of the property at the time of the sale which was $1.2 million[5] whereas the purchase price was for $910,000; a purchase price $300,000 below market value is insufficient purchase price. However, in opposition, Plaintiff maintains that adequate consideration does not require that the seller receive fair market value for the property, but rather the consideration be fair and reasonable under the circumstances. (Opp. p. 12:8-10.) What are the relevant circumstances are as follows: - Defendant/homeowner is a 69-year-old widow - Defendant cannot afford her monthly mortgage (Bodoh Decl) - Defendants husband handled the finances - Plaintiff told Defendant that she would save money by not having to pay the commission from the sale proceeds (Bodoh Decl) - Plaintiffs representative, Russell Nelson, went to Defendants residence on several occasions in an attempt to have [Defendant] sign a sales contract. (Bodoh Decl. p. 2) - At the appointment on October 9, 2023 at Defendants Property, Defendant explained that she needed to sell the Property due to recent life changes (Opp. p. 5:27-28) - At the appointment, Plaintiff also extended an offer to purchase the Property for $900,000 and for a cash advance of the purchase price to assist with immediate financial need (Opp. p. 6:2-4) - Plaintiff spent three hours at Defendants home to obtain a signature (Reply p. 2) - On November 20, 2023, more than one month after the October 9, 2023 appointment, Defendant called Mr. Nelson and advised that she would like to proceed with the sale of the Property to Renovate Properties after the holidays. (Troy Lines Decl., ¶5.) - At the appointment at Defendants Property on December 13, 2023, Defendant advised of the other home sale options she had been evaluating over the past weeks, including another offer that she received for the Property from OpenDoor, but that she was pleased with Plaintiffs offer. (Lines Decl., ¶ 6.) Here, the foregoing evidences adequate consideration. Defendant wanted to sell her home; Defendant needed to sell her home; Defendant entertained other offers; and Defendant took over one month thinking about the offer. Neither party addresses the facts of Lundgren, but the case is more instructive than Grief. In Lundgren, the trial court determined that the son was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of his mothers prior quitclaim deed to his sister. (Id. at p. 585.) The appellate court agreed with the trial court that [t]he evidence more than establishes [the sons] status as a bone fide purchaser for fair and adequate consideration by focusing on the following evidence: the mother was in serious financial distress and had no place to live; she had no funds; she was deeply in debt; her car was about to be repossessed; the property could not be rented in its dilapidated condition and expensive repairs were needed; she could not the make the payments on her home or pay the taxes; no one else wanted the property/she would lose the property anyway; and the son took out a loan and refinanced the property and repaired the property. (Id. at p. 590, emphasis added.) Similarly, here, Defendant is in financial distress and states she cannot afford the mortgage. To the extent that Defendant heavily focuses on the FMV, as laid out in the rules above, the issue is not whether Plaintiff offered the FMV but whether the offer was fair and reasonable in light of the circumstances. And even if she received below FMV, the other benefits such as a cash advance to assist with immediate financial needs and the ability to quickly sell the property support adequate consideration. (See Opp. p. 13 citing Meyer v. Benko (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 937, 945 [where the seller testified he signed the contract at the identified sale price to sell the property more quickly, and thus the sellers desire to quickly consummate a sale explains the difference between the sale price agreed to and the alleged value of the property, the appellate court determined that the trial courts finding of inadequate consideration to be erroneous.].) Therefore, the contract is not lacking in adequate consideration. B. Whether There is a Probable Validity of Seeking Specific Performance? To obtain specific performance after a breach of contract, a plaintiff must generally show: (1) the inadequacy of his legal remedy; (2) an underlying contract that is both reasonable and supported by adequate consideration; (3) the existence of a mutuality of remedies; (4) contractual terms which are sufficiently definite to enable the court to know what it is to enforce; and (5) a substantial similarity of the requested performance to that promised in the contract. [Citations.]. (Real Estate Analytics, LLC v. Vallas (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 463, 472, quoting Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Inc. v. Sanders (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 571, 575.) Defendant argues that monetary compensation is an adequate legal remedy. According to Civil Code section 3387, [i]t is to be presumed that the breach of an agreement to transfer real property cannot be adequately relieved by pecuniary compensation. In the case of a single-family dwelling which the party seeking performance intends to occupy, this presumption is conclusive. In all other cases, this presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof. The Real Estate Analytics, LLC court explained the statute: By imposing a conclusive presumption for certain residential transactions, the Legislature decided that monetary damages can never be satisfactory compensation for a buyer who intends to live at a single-family home, regardless of the circumstances. But by establishing a rebuttable presumption with respect to other property, the Legislature left open the possibility that damages can be an adequate remedy for a breach of a real estate contract. The rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of proof to the breaching party to prove the adequacy of the damages. By so doing, the Legislature intended that a damages remedy for a nonbreaching party to a commercial real estate contract is the exception rather than the rule. (Id. at p. 474, emphasis added.) Here, the court determines that Defendant has met its burden of proof to prove the adequacy of damages. As explained by Defendant, Plaintiff is a professional homebuyer and buys property at or below market prices for profit such that it is buying the property for profit or economic gain. (Motion pp. 5, 7.) But, as noted by Plaintiff, the fact that Plaintiff is motivated solely to make a profit does not overcome the strong statutory presumption that all land is unique and therefore damages are inadequate to make a potential buyer whole for the breach. (Id. at p. 476.) Notwithstanding, the appellate court in Real Estate Analytics, LLC determined that damages would be inadequate. There, the property was unique in terms of its size [14.13 acres], location [Carlsbad near Pacific Coast Highway], and existing usenear the Pacific Ocean and contains an established mobile home community&has ocean views and is close to several desirable local beaches, two major vacation resorts, the Del Mark racetrack, expensive neighborhoods, and major transportation routes&and unique in terms of the potential profits&. (Id. at pp. 474-475.) Here, however, this property is like most other single-family homes in the City of Glendora. [A] seller [must] show not only abstract replaceability but concrete availability of reasonably interchangeable property at terms within the buyer's means. (Id. at p. 475.) And here, Defendants submissions indicate that there is nothing special about this property. Therefore, Defendant has made an evidentiary showing that there is not a probable validity of winning on the merits as specific performance because a damages remedy would provide Plaintiff with adequate relief. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED; attorney fees are not granted. [1] All of Plaintiffs evidentiary objections are overruled namely as Defendant is making statements based upon her personal knowledge; thus, the statements are not speculative/not assuming facts not in evidence. [2] The motion is largely dedicated to the third element, but the motion briefly references this second element. However, in Reply, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiffs complaint concerns real property and may be sufficient o consider a real property claim&. (Reply p. 2:5-6.) Thus, the court will only focus on whether Plaintiff has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs claim for specific performance will prevail. [3] As a preliminary matter, Defendant makes clear that for purposes of this motion, Defendant is not contesting the validity of the agreement. (See Motion p. 5:5-7 [Although Defendant Homeowner reserves the right to contest the validity of the Contract at trial, for purposes of this motion Defendant Homeowner is not asserting the Contract is void or invalid&.].) But the motion and reply largely speak to defenses to contract formation, which go to the validity of a contract. (See e.g., Brawley v. Crosby Research Foundation (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 103; § 56:4. Inadequate consideration, 3 Cal. Affirmative Def. § 56:4 (2d ed.) See e.g., California Civil Practice Real Property Litigation (2024) Circumstances defeating formation of valid contract, § 1:37; see also § 55:1. UnconscionabilityIn general, 3 Cal. Affirmative Def. § 55:1, fns. 16, 17 (2d ed.).) [4] There is no separate COA for specific performance as it is a remedy. (See e.g., Green Valley Landowners Assn v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 425, 433.) [5] See Steven J. Wood declaration [licensed Certified Residential Appraiser]. (Motion p. 10 of 46 of PDF.)

Ruling

Forstall, Brenda vs. Estate of Richard Forstall

Sep 16, 2024 |S-CV-0050419

S-CV-0050419 Forstall, Brenda vs. Estate of Richard Forstall** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouragedAppearance required.

Document

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK V MAYNARDES, JOHNNY B

Sep 05, 2024 |Luis Delgado |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008352-XXXA-MB

Document

Hector Santos VS Felix L Martinez et al.

Sep 04, 2024 |Reid P. Scott, II |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008407-XXXA-MB

Document

PEREZ, EDGAR V MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC

Sep 05, 2024 |Luis Delgado |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008379-XXXA-MB

Document

Renee Marie Smith VS VIG PRIVATE LENDING INC a California Corporation et al.

Sep 03, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008355-XXXA-MB

Document

Keith Stone VS HH Carpet Co of Palm Beach County

Sep 04, 2024 |Gregory M. Keyser |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008414-XXXA-MB

Document

SOFI BANK NA V TAMIM, MOHAMMED

Aug 29, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008277-XXXA-MB

Document

PEREZ, EDGAR V MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC

Sep 05, 2024 |Luis Delgado |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008379-XXXA-MB

Document

WREND, JONATHAN V MCCLARAN, ROBERT I II

Sep 03, 2024 |Scott R. Kerner |CONTRACT & DEBT |50-2024-CA-008344-XXXA-MB

COMPLAINT - CORRECTED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (F/B PLT) November 26, 2018 (2024)

FAQs

What is a complaint for injunction? ›

If you believe that someone is likely to take an action that will violate your rights, you can ask a court to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting (“enjoining”) the action until the case between you and the other party is over. It takes more than three weeks to get a preliminary injunction (sometimes much more).

What is the injunctive relief in federal court? ›

Injunctive relief, also known as an injunction, is a remedy which restrains a party from doing certain acts or requires a party to act in a certain way. It is generally only available when there is no other remedy at law and irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted.

What are the requirements for injunctive relief in Florida? ›

A party seeking an injunction under general Florida case law must demonstrate: 1) irreparable harm; 2) a clear legal right; 3) an inadequate remedy at law; 4) consideration of the public interest.

What is an example of an injunction? ›

Injunctions are also used by a court when monetary restitution isn't sufficient to remedy the harm. For example, in addition to making a financial judgment against a defendant, a court might issue a permanent injunction ordering that the defendant does not participate in a certain activity or business.

What are the four factors for injunctive relief? ›

The Supreme Court has identified four equitable factors relevant to the property-liability dichotomy: (1) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (2) whether other remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are adequate to compensate for the infringement; (3) ...

What are four components required to establish grounds for a preliminary injunction? ›

To warrant preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must show (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irrepa- rable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest ...

What are the two types of injunctive relief? ›

Injunctive relief may be mandatory (requiring a person to do something) or prohibitory (stopping them doing something).

Which of the following is an example of injunctive relief? ›

A temporary restraining order (TRO) is a common preliminary injunctive relief example. For instance, a court order placing the sale of a company on hold while a breach of fiduciary duty or a shareholder derivative lawsuit is ongoing.

What is the injunctive relief for? ›

It either stops someone from doing something or requires them to do something. It's used when no other legal remedy is available and to prevent irreparable harm. Injunctive relief is typically sought when monetary damages are insufficient to right a legal wrong or prevent future harm.

What are the most common injunctions? ›

A prohibitory injunction is the most common form of injunction, and directs a party to refrain from acting in a certain manner. Examples of a prohibitory injunction are cease and desist orders (entered against Napster), or an order stopping a bulldozer prior to the razing of an historic building.

How powerful is an injunction? ›

"When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment.

What is the difference between damages and injunctive relief? ›

In brief, damages are usually awarded in the form of money, whereas injunctive relief is in the form of a court order to stop someone from doing something. For example, compensatory damages are the amount of money the plaintiff lost where the defendant's tort was the “legal” cause of the loss.

How do I write a request for an injunction? ›

Write a short and plain statement of the claim. Do not make legal arguments. State as briefly as possible the facts showing that each plaintiff is entitled to the injunction or other relief sought.

What is the meaning of injunction in English? ›

An injunction is a court order, usually one telling someone not to do something. [law] He took out a court injunction against the newspaper demanding the return of the document. [ + against] Synonyms: order, ruling, command, instruction More Synonyms of injunction.

What is the difference between a stay order and an injunction? ›

Injunctions are issued pretrial or during a trial. A stay order is used when an appeal is pending to prevent an order or judgment being executed or enforced during the appeal. ETA: Stay orders are different within a bankruptcy setting, though.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Melvina Ondricka

Last Updated:

Views: 5281

Rating: 4.8 / 5 (68 voted)

Reviews: 91% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Melvina Ondricka

Birthday: 2000-12-23

Address: Suite 382 139 Shaniqua Locks, Paulaborough, UT 90498

Phone: +636383657021

Job: Dynamic Government Specialist

Hobby: Kite flying, Watching movies, Knitting, Model building, Reading, Wood carving, Paintball

Introduction: My name is Melvina Ondricka, I am a helpful, fancy, friendly, innocent, outstanding, courageous, thoughtful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.