2 Nguyen that she would use one of her other solely-controlled entities, the Global Financial Group, also a Washington, D.C. The local rules of this district likewise dictate that “n determining a motion for summary judgment, the court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion.” LCvR7(h)(1). Vu told 1 “ny factual assertion in the movant’s affidavits will be accepted by the as being true unless the plaintiff submits his own affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertion.” Neal, 963 F.2d at 456–57. Based on all of these representations, Nguyen agreed to contribute to the venture. They agreed, in relevant part, that Nguyen would be paid back the entirety of his investment plus transaction fees, and any profits would be split between the two according to their relative ownership interests. In addition, Vu provided Nguyen with other investment documents indicating his relative share and the operating costs of the project. Rather, at the time Vu secured Nguyen’s commitment, the account for the project had an overdraft balance of –$147.56. Contrary to Vu’s representations, however, she had not invested any capital in the joint venture at the time. ¶ 4, which showed a capital infusion of $200,000, Pl.’s Stmt. corporation (and a defendant in this case), see id. She also provided Nguyen with the operating agreement of one of her solely-owned companies, Global Real Estate Management, a Washington, D.C. Vu further indicated that she had invested $200,000 in the project herself. She indicated that she had had extensive experience and success in flipping properties in that area. First, Vu invited Nguyen to invest $50,000 in a project flipping investment properties in Washington, D.C. 63-2, and eventually entered into business together, see generally id. ¶ 3, first formed a friendship on social media, see Pl.’s Stmt. 1, and Vu, a resident of Virginia, see id. 1 Nguyen, a resident of Texas, see Compl. Thus, the Court accepts the factual assertions in Nguyen’s statement of undisputed facts and supporting documents as true. BACKGROUND Vu, who was initially represented by counsel but now represents herself pro se, and her two companies, who remain unrepresented, failed to respond to Nguyen’s summary judgment motion, despite being warned of the consequences, see, e.g., Minute Order of September 1, 2020. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny the motion in part. Before the Court is Nguyen’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. Nguyen seeks compensatory and punitive damages. and Global Financial Group, Inc., based on their failed joint business venture. MEMORANDUM OPINION In this diversity case, Quang Nguyen brings various state law claims against Kimberly Vu and two of her solely-owned companies, Global Real Estate Management, Inc. 65 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA QUANG NGUYEN, Plaintiff, No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |