Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Luv N Care, Ltd v. Angel Juvenile Products

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

June 9, 2015

LUV N CARE, LTD,
v.
ANGEL JUVENILE PRODUCTS, AKA LAREDO

MEMORANDUM RULING

JAMES T. TRIMBLE, Jr., District Judge.

Before the court are the following motions: (1) "Certain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction" (R. #118) filed by defendants, Lerado Group (Holding) Company Limited, Lerado Group Limited, Lerado China Limited and Lerado Overseas Limited (collectively referred to as the "Lerado Group"); (2) "Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" (R. #119) filed by defendants, Angel Juvenile Products, Peaceful Trust Co. Ltd., Lerado Group LTD., Lerado Group (Holding) Company Limited, Lerado Overseas Limited, Lerado China Limited and Angel Juvenile Products (Zhong Shan) Company Limited; (3) "Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" (R. #138); and, (4) "Defendants' Motion to Strike and in the Alternative Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" (R. #145) filed by defendants, Angel Juvenile Products, Peaceful Trust Co. Ltd., Lerado Group Ltd., Lerado (Holding) Co., Limited, Lerado Overseas Limited., Lerado China Limited and Angel Juvenile Products (Zhong Shan) Company Limited.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In its original complaint, plaintiff, Luv'n Care, Ltd. ("LNC") names defendant, Angel Juvenile Products ("AJP"), a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of China with its principal office and place of business in Shanghai, People's Republic of China ("PRC"). LNC alleges that AJP and Peaceful Trust Company Limited entered into two (2) 5-year distribution agreements with it in August of 2002.[1] Defendant, Angel Juvenile Products (Zhong Shan) Company Limited (herein after referred to as "AJP (Zhong Shan)"), asserts that it is the signatory to the distribution/sales agreement and that AJP and AJP (Zhong Shan) is the same company.[2] Defendants further maintain that AJP and Angel Juvenile Products Company Limited are incorrectly named and thus should be dismissed.[3] The agreements obligated AJP (or AJP (Zhong Shan) and Peaceful Trust to make minimum purchases and pay 6% royalties to plaintiff.[4] LNC alleges that these defendants never purchased any products, nor did they pay any royalties pursuant to the distribution agreements. Thus, LNC alleges that AJP (Zhong Shan) and Peaceful Trust owe it commissions for the duration of the 5-year contract in the total amount of $1, 722, 000.[5]

LNC also alleges that it entered into an oral contract with The Lerado Group Limited, to make molds for plaintiff to manufacture its product; pursuant to the oral contract, LNC paid the sum of $100, 000 for the molds, but defendants did not honor the contractual obligation and instead took the molds, and made and sold copycat products.[6]

In its amended complaint, LNC added Peaceful Trust Company Limited ("Peaceful Trust")[7]; LNC alleges that Peaceful Trust, as a signatory of one of the distribution agreements, was also liable for breach of contract. LNC further names, under Louisiana's "single business enterprise" doctrine, numerous other defendants as follows:

(1) Angel Juvenile Products (Zhong Shan) Company, Limited ("AJP Zhong Shan"), organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China, having a principal office and place of business in China;[8]
(2) Angel Juvenile Products Company, Limited, ("AJP Ltd") organized under the laws of China and/or Hong Kong, having a principal office and place of business in China;[9]
(3) Shanghai Wexin Juvenile Company ("SWJC"), organized under the laws of China and/or Hong Kong, having a principal office and place of business in China and/or Hong Kong;[10]
(4) Lerado China Limited ("LCL"), organized under the laws of British Virgin Islands, having a principal office and place of business in China and/or Hong Kong;[11]
(5) Lerado Industrial Limited ("LIL"), organized under the laws of China, having a principal office and place of business in China and/or Hong Kong;[12]
(6) Lerado Overseas Limited ("LOL"), organized under the laws of British Virgin Islands, having a principal office and place of business in Taiwan or China;[13]
(7) Lerado Group Limited ("LGL"), organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, having a principal office and place of business in China and/or Hong Kong;[14]
(8) Lerado Group (Holding) Company Limited ("LGHCL"), organized under the laws of Bermuda, having a principal office and place of business in Bermuda;[15]

In LNC's first amending complaint, plaintiff alleges that each of these entities is an instrumentality or adjunct of each other making them all liable to plaintiff for the damages sought under the single business enterprise theory. LNC asserts that Henry Huang controlled all of the named entities and/or handled or controlled the dealings with plaintiff.[16]

LNC also alleges that on or about February 10, 2003, it received a fax from Henry Huang which informed plaintiff that AJP had changed its name to Shanghai Wexin Juvenile Company ("SWJC"); SWJC would assume AJP's obligations under the distribution agreements.[17]

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, indicate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[18] A fact is "material" if its existence or nonexistence "might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law."[19] A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.[20] As to issues which the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's claim."[21] Once the movant makes this showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.[22] The burden requires more than mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings. The non-moving party must demonstrate by way of affidavit or other admissible evidence that there are genuine issues of material fact or law.[23] There is no genuine issue of material fact if, viewing the evidence in the light more favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the non-moving party.[24] If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.[25]

LAW AND ANALYSIS

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss (R. #118) the following entities for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), :

1. Lerado Group (Holding) Company Limited,
2. Lerado Group Limited,
3. Lerado China Limited,
4. Lerado Overseas ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.