Preview
12/17/2020 4:27 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 49062686
2020-81187 / Court: 164 By: Joshua Hall
Filed: 12/17/2020 4:27 PM
CAUSE NO
TEA BROTHERS CO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs,
Vv HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
KATELYNN HUA, VKH MEDIA
NETWORK, LLC, TUAN A. KHUU
& GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLC
Defendants.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Tea Brothers Co., a Texas corporation (“Plaintiff’) and files their
Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures against Katelynn Hua, VKH Media Network,
LLC, Tuan A. Khuu & Global Law Group, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) for good and
sufficient cause of action, Plaintiff would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following:
L Monetary Relief and Discovery Control Plan
1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 190.3 and affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the expedited actions
process in Tex. R. Civ. P. 169, because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not
more than $1,000,000.00, Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(4).
LL Parties
2 Plaintiff is a Texas corporation in Harris County, Texas.
3 Defendant, Katelynn Hua, (herein after individually as “Defendant Hua”) is an
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 1 of 15
individual residing in Harris County and can be served with process at 6515 Winter Garden Ct.,
Houston, Texas, 77083 or wherever she may be found
4 Defendant, VKH Media Network, LLC, (herein after individually as “Defendant
VKH”) is a California limited liability company doing business in Harris County and can be
served with process through its registered agent for service of process listed in the records of the
California Secretary of State as LegalZoom.com, Inc (C2967349) at 5025 W. Roberts Drive,
Santa Ana, California 92704 or wherever it may be found.
5 Defendant Tuan A. Khuu, (herein after individually as “Defendant Khuu”) is an
individual residing in Oklahoma and can be served with process at his place of business listed on
his website: https://globallawgroup.us/houston at 9440 Bellaire Blvd., Houston, Texas, 77036 or
wherever he may be found.
6 Defendant Global Law Group, LLC, (herein after individually as “Defendant
Global”) is an Oklahoma limited liability company doing business in Harris County and can be
served with process through its registered agent for service of process listed in the records of the
Oklahoma Secretary of State as Tuan A. Khuu at 6508 NW 127TH, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73142 or wherever he may be found.
il. Jurisdiction and Venue
7 This court has jurisdiction over the claim because the damages sought are within
the jurisdictional limits of the court. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not more
than $1,000,000.00 and all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
8 Venue is proper in Harris County because all or a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Harris County, Texas. Specifically, this matter
relates to a contract for the sale of goods transacted by parties residing in Harris County, Texas
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 2 of 15
and causing injury and damages in Harris County, Texas including torts committed against
Plaintiff in Harris County, Texas. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042 (1) & (2). A tort
suit for damages may be brought in the county and precinct in which the injury was inflicted
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §15.0093
Iv. Factual Background
9 Plaintiff is a Texas corporation, with its principal place of business in Harris
County, Texas. During the month of May 2020!, Plaintiff and Defendants Hua and VKH
engaged in discussions and negotiations for the sale and procurement of thirty thousand (30,000)
boxes of 100 count powder-free nitrile examination gloves at a sales price of Seven Dollars
($7.00 USD) per box with an aggregate total purchase price of Two Hundred Ten Thousand
Dollars ($210,000.00 USD).” Plaintiff hereby attaches a copy of the Contract as Exhibit A and
incorporates it by reference
10. These discussions and negotiations culminated with the Plaintiff and Defendants
Hua and VKH executing a Sale Purchase Agreement for Delivery of Powder Free Nitrile
Examination Gloves on or about May 28, 2019, (herein after the “Contract”). Please see Exhibit
B - Text Message between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff executed the Contract as the Buyer
through its agent Tony Nguyen. Defendants Hua and VKH executed the Contract as the Seller
both individually and through VKH’s agent Hua.*
11 The Contract expressly states that shipping of thirty thousand (30,000) boxes of
100 count powder-free nitrile examination gloves (herein after the “Goods”), at a sales price of
| See Exhibit A Sale Purchase Agreement For Delivery Of Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves on or about
May 28, 2019, (herein after the “Contract”).
Id.
5 See Exhibit A- Contract
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 3 of 15
Seven Dollars ($7.00 USD) per box with an Contract aggregate total purchase price of Two
Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) would commence “5-7 business days after
the contract signing date”. Please see Exhibit A - The Contract
12. Furthermore, the Contract expressly states “[e]scrow, fund released upon receipt of
products.”* Please see Exhibit A - The Contract.
13 On or about May 29, 29020 — Defendant Hua individually, and Defendant VKH
acting through Defendant VKH’s agent, Defendant Hua introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Khuu
through What’sApp messages.°
14. In a series of What’sApp messages Plaintiff expressly sought to solidify terms of
the agreement and requested verification of the character, quality and security of the account to
which Plaintiff was to deposit the Contract aggregate total purchase price of Two Hundred Ten
Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD). Plaintiff further sought to verify the terms of the
transaction and expressly required the account to be an escrow account as expressed in the
Contract. Defendants provided Plaintiff with Defendant Global’s bank wiring instructions
Defendant Hua replied, “it is a trust fund/escrow account 7
15. On June 1, 2020, Plaintiff wire transferred One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars
($105,000.00 USD)* to Defendant Hua’s escrow account. This amount represented one-half of
the Contract aggregate total purchase price paid by Plaintiff. Please see Exhibit C - Wire
Transfer Confirmations.
16. On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff wire transferred One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars
‘Id.
SId.
° See Exhibit B — Text message between Plaintiff and Defendants
‘Id,
8 See Exhibit C — Wire transfer confirmation.
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 4 of 15
($105, 000.00 USD) to Defendant Hua’s escrow account. This amount represented the second
half of the Contract aggregate total purchase price paid by Plaintiff. Please see Exhibit C - Wire
Transfer Confirmation
17. From May 31, 2020 — July 8, 2020 Defendants Hua, and VKH and Plaintiff were
in constant and regular communications regarding the progress of the shipment of goods.”
During these communications Plaintiff and Defendants exchanged communications regarding the
order, price, quantity and quality of shipment of Goods. Defendants assured Plaintiff that
Defendants Hua and VKH would be able to satisfy all terms of the agreement.
18 On or about July 9, 2020, Plaintiff asked Defendant Khuu for an update, Defendant
Khuu replied he’s been sick and ou t,10
19. On or about July 16, 2020, Plaintiff requested an update on the shipment order for
pick up from Defendants. Defendant Hua informed Plaintiff that “the funds will be released
when all parties agree and sign after inspection.” The Goods had not been shipped and Defendant
Hua represented to Plaintiff the funds were still in escrow and had not been released. Plaintiff
then stated he wanted to cancel the order pursuant to the Contract and demanded the funds be
released. Plaintiff asked Defendant Hua if she is opposed from signing the documents required to
return Plaintiffs funds. Defendant did not respond to question. Please see Exhibit D -
Defendant Text Message Responses.
20. By July 29, 2020 Plaintiff and Defendants’ communications broke down and
formal demand was sent for the return of escrowed funds. Please see Exhibit E- Demand Letter
v. Causes of Action
Count 1a- Breach of Contract against Defendants Hua and VKH
° See Exhibit B- Text message between Plaintiff and Defendants
10 Ig.
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 5 of 15
21. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-20 as though fully
restated herein.
22. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants Hua and VKH executed a valid and
enforceable written contract. Please see Exhibit A - The Contract. The Contract provided that
Plaintiff would deposit the total purchase price amount of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars
($210,000.00 USD) into Defendants Khuu and Global’s escrow account for the purchase of the
Goods, and that Defendants would deliver the Goods to a designated location.
23 Plaintiff fully performed Plaintiff’s contractual obligations and all conditions
precedent to obligate performance of Defendants’ duties. On June 1° 2020, Plaintiff wired One
Hundred Five Thousand Dollars into Defendant Hua escrow account. Defendant Hua escrow
account was being managed and secured by Defendant Khuu. Defendant Khuu was introduced to
Plaintiff by Defendant Hua as her attorney. Defendant Khuu guaranteed Plaintiff his job was to
secure the funds in escrow account and release funds when all parties agreed after inspection of
shipment goods. Defendant Khuu than reassured his legal office had been in practice for twenty-
seven years and his trust account is safe to use for escrow. Plaintiff wired details and supporting
documents.
24. Defendants breached the contract by not delivering the Goods.
25. Defendants’ breach caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following
damages: Actual Damages of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD); Out-of-
Pocket Damages; Restitution and Rescission Damages; Quantum Meruit; Unjust Enrichment;
Nominal Damages; Interest; Court Costs; and Attorney Fees.
Count 1b- Breach of Contract against Defendants Khuu and Global
26. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-25 as though fully
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 6 of 15
restated herein.
27. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants Khuu and Global entered into a valid
and enforceable contract that was performable within one year. By this contract, the Parties
agreed that Plaintiff would deposit the total purchase price amount of Two Hundred Ten
Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) into Defendants Khuu’s and Global’s escrow account for
the purchase of the goods, and that Defendants Khuu and Global would safeguard the funds and
oll
that “[e]scrow, fund released upon receipt of products.
28 Plaintiff fully performed Plaintiff’s contractual obligations and all conditions
precedent to obligate performance of Defendants’ duties. Plaintiff wired details and supporting
documents as confirmation of completion of Plaintiff’s duties.
29. Defendants Hua and VKH did not deliver the Goods. Plaintiff has not received the
Goods. Plaintiff has not authorized Defendants Khuu and Global to release the funds to
Defendants Hua and VKH. However, Defendants Khuu and Global released funds without
Plaintiff’s authorization
30. Defendants Khuu and Global breached the contract’s express term that “[e]scrow,
funds [would be] released upon receipt of products.”!? Defendants Khuu and Global also
breached the express warranty that the funds will be released when all parties agree after
inspection. '°
31 Defendants Khuu and Global’s breach caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in
the following damages: Actual Damages of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00
USD); Out-of-Pocket Damages; Restitution and Rescission Damages; Quantum Meruit; Unjust
1 See Exhibit A — Contract
? See Exhibit A — Contract
13 See Exhibit B- Text message between Plaintiff and Defendants .
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 7 of 15
Enrichment; Nominal Damages; Interest; Court Costs; and Attorney Fees.
Count 2- Conversion
32. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-31 as though fully
restated herein.
33. The elements of a cause of action for conversion are the following
1 the plaintiff owned, possessed, or had the right to immediate possession of
property;
ii the property was personal property;
ili the defendant wrongfully exercised dominion or control over the property;
iv. the plaintiff suffered injury.
34. The elements can be found in the following: Green Int'l v. Solis, 951 $.W.2d 384,
391 (Tex.1997) (element 3); United Mobile Networks, L.P. v. Deaton, 939 §.W.2d 146, 147
(Tex.1997) (element 4); Bandy v. First State Bank, 835 S.W.2d 609,622 (Tex.1992) (element 3);
Waisath v. Lack's Stores, 474 S.W.2d 444,447 (Tex.1971) (element 3); Presley v. Cooper, 284
S.W.2d 138, 141 (Tex.1955) (element 3); Lawyers Title Co. v. J.G. Cooper Dev. Inc., 424
S.W.3d 713, 718 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (elements 1-4); Cuidado Casero Home
Health v. Ayuda Home Health Care Servs., 404 S.W.3d 737,748 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013, no pet.)
(elements 1-3); NXCESS Motor Cars, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 317 $.W.3d 462,470
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (elements 1, 3)
35. Plaintiff owned, possessed, or had the right to immediate possession of property,
namely Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD).
36. The Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) was personal
business property.
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 8 of 15
37. Defendants Khuu and Global wrongfully exercised dominion or control over the
property when they released the property to Defendants Hua and VKH.
38. Defendants Hua and VKH wrongfully exercised dominion or control over the
property when they used the funds to their own benefit.
39. Plaintiff suffered injury because it does not have the Two Hundred Ten Thousand
Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) nor does it have the benefit of the bargain, the Goods.
Count 2- Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Defendants Khuu and Global
40. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-39 as though fully
restated herein
41 The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the following:
i. The plaintiff and defendant had a fiduciary relationship.
ii. The defendants breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff.
iii. The defendants’ breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, or benefit to the
defendants.
42. The elements can be found in the following: First United Pentecostal Ch. v.
Parker, 514 §.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex.2017) (elements 1-3); Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 237
(Tex.1999) (element 2), Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp., 160 S.W.2d 509, 513-14
(Tex.1942) (elements 1, 2, 3(2)); E-Learning LLC v. AT&T Corp., 517 S.W.3d 849, 861
(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (elements 1-3); Jordan v. Lyles, 455 S.W.3d 785,792
(Tex.App.-Tyler 2015, no pet.) (elements 1-3); Heritage Gulf Coast Props. Ltd. v. Sandalwood
Apts., Inc., 416 S.W.3d 642, 650 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (elements 1-3);
Graham Mortg. Corp. v. Hall, 307 $.W.3d 472,479 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (elements
1-3); Plotkin v. Joekel, 304 S.W.3d 455, 479 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 9 of 15
(elements 1-3); Beck v. Law Offices of Edwin J. (Ted) Terry Jr.,P.C., 284 $.W.3d 416, 429
(Tex.App.-Austin 2009, no pet.) (elements 1-3(1)); Kelly v. Gaines, 181 S.W3d 394, 414
(Tex.App.-Waco 2005) (elements 1-3), rev'd on other grounds 235 $.W.3d 179 (Tex.2007);
Hartford Gas. Ins. v. Walker Cty. Agency, Inc. , 808 S.W.2d 681, 687- 88 (Tex.App.-Corpus
Christi 1991, no writ) (elements 1, 2).
43 The Plaintiff and Defendants Khuu and Global had a fiduciary relationship.
Plaintiff expressly asked that the funds to be placed in an escrow account. Defendants Khuu and
Global expressly stated the funds would be safeguarded in an escrow account used in his law
practice. Defendants Khuu and Global expressly stated he would act as an escrow agent for the
transaction and to Plaintiff to safeguard Plaintiff’s funds.
44, Defendants Khuu and Global expressly stated he would act as an escrow and that
funds would not be release without express instructions and per the terms of the contract
Defendants Khuu and Global released the funds without express instructions from the Plaintiff
and in direct contradiction to the terms of the Contract. Defendants Khuu and Global breached
their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff.
45. Defendants Khuu’s and Global's breach resulted in injury to the Plaintiff, and a
benefit to the Defendants.
Count 3 DTPA Claim against Defendants
46. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-45 as though fully
restated herein
47. Plaintiff is a consumer under the DTPA because Plaintiff sought goods by
purchase. '*
4 Consumer Status Under DTPA,” ch. 8, §2.1; “ chart 8-1
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 10 of 15
48. Defendants Hua and Khuu are individuals that can be sued under the DTPA.
49. Defendants VKH and Global are limited liability companies and defined as
persons that can be sued under the DTPA.°
50. Defendants violated the DTPA when Defendants engaged in false, misleading, or
deceptive acts or practices that Plaintiff relied on to Plaintiff’s detriment
51 Specifically, Defendants Hua and NKH represented that the Goods had
characteristics, uses, or benefits that they did not have, and that the goods were of a particular
standard, quality, or grade although they are of another.
52. Additionally, Defendants Khuu and Global warranted that the funds will be
released when all parties agreed after inspection. Defendants also breached the contract’s express
term that “[e]scrow, funds [would be] released upon receipt of products.
53 Failure to complete work required to be performed under contract is a breach of
the warranty of “good and workmanlike manner.” LaBella v. Charlie Thomas, Inc., 942 S.W.2d
127, 135 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997).
54, Defendants violated the DTPA when defendant engaged in an unconscionable
action or course of action that, to Plaintiff’s detriment, took advantage of plaintiff’s lack of
knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity to a grossly unfair degree. Specifically, Defendants
took advantage of Plaintiff, when Plaintiff said that it was his first time doing an escrow
transaction and Defendants took Plaintiff’s $210,000.00 in escrow without providing the
bargained for exchange.
55 Plaintiff gave Defendants notice as required by Texas Business & Commerce
Code section 17.505(a). Attached as Exhibit E is a copy of the notice letter sent to Defendants,
: DTPA defendant,” ch. 8, §2.2
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 11 of 15
which is incorporated by reference.
56. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a producing cause of Plaintiff’s injury, which
resulted in the following damages: Economic Damages of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars
($210,000.00 USD); Interest; Court Costs; and Attorney Fees.
57. As stated supra, Defendant acted intentionally, which entitles Plaintiff to recover
treble economic damages under Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.50(b)(1).
Count 4 Negligent Misrepresentation against Defendants
58 Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-57 as though fully
restated herein
59. The elements of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are the
following
1 The Defendants made a representation to the Plaintiff in the course of the
Defendants’ business or in a transaction in which the Defendants had an interest.
As stated supra, Defendants represented to Plaintiff Defendant Khuu and Global
would act as escrow agent in order to facilitate Defendants Hua and VKH to sell
the Goods to Plaintiff. Defendants represented that Plaintiff’s funds would be
safeguarded in a law firm escrow account until Goods were received and/or
instructions to release were expressly given by Plaintiff.
i The Defendants supplied false information for the guidance of others. The
Defendants expressly stated Defendant Khuu was practicing attorney in Texas
with offices in Texas and would act as an escrow agent and attorney under the
laws and bar of the State of Texas. These statements were false.
iti The Defendants did not exercise reasonable care or competence in
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 12 of 15
obtaining or communicating the information.
iv The Plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation. Plaintiff relied upon
Defendants Hua’s and VKH’s introduction of Defendants” Khuu and Global as
their attorney and licensed in Texas to practice law and act as an escrow agent
Defendants Khuu and Global confirmed these statements to Plaintiff.
60. The elements can be found in the following: McCamish, Martin, Brown &
Loeffler v. FE. Appling Interests, 991 S.W.2d 787, 791 (Tex.1999) (elements 1-5);
American Tobacco Co. y. Grinnell, 951 §.W.2d 420, 436 (Tex.1997) (element 4); Federal Land
Bank Ass ’n v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex.1991) (elements 1-5); Camp Mystic, Inc. v.
Eastland, 390 S.W.3d 444, 458 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. granted, judgm’t vacated
w.rm.) (elements 1-5); Brown & Brown v. Omni Metals, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 361, 384
(Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (elements 1-5); Nazareth Int'l v. J.C.
Penney Co., 287 S.W.3d 452, 460 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (elements 1-5);
Johnson v. Baylor Univ, 188 S.W.3d 296, 302 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, pet. denied)
(element1-5); Wright’s v. Red River Fed. Credit Un., 71 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex.App.
Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (elements 1-5); Zipp Indus. v. Ranger Ins., 39 S.W.3d 658, 668
(Tex.App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (elements 1-5); see also D.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsboro ISD, 973
S.W.2d 662, 663-64 (Tex.1998) (distinguishing narrower scope of liability for negligent
misrepresentation from liability for fraudulent inducement).
VII. Alternative Pleading:
61 The foregoing facts and theories are pled cumulatively and alternatively with no
election or waiver of rights or remedies.
Vu. Conditions Precedent
62. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claims have been performed or have
occurred.
63. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful threats and acts against the Plaintiff, Plaintiff
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 13 of 15
has suffered the following damages and seeks recovery of the same:
1 Injunctive relief;
i actual damages;
iii exemplary damages;
1V. prejudgment and post judgment interest;
v court costs;
vi reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and expenses incurred herein, including
contingent fees for appeal; and
vii all other relief to which plaintiff is entitled
VIII, Rule 193.7 Notice
64. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby
gives notice to Defendants that they intend to use all documents produced by each party in
pretrial and trial as self-authenticating evidence to the extent allowed under the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
IX. Request For Disclosur
65 Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, plaintiff requests that defendant
disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in
Rule 194.2.
X. Prayer
66. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that judgment
against Defendants in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with all
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of Court, and for such other
and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled by law and equity
Respectfully submitted,
HUYNH & HUYNH, PLLC
7670 Woodway Drive, Suite 342
Houston, Texas 77063-1520
Phone: 713-622-1111
Fax: 713-583-4578
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 14 of 15
By: /s/ Hieu QO. Huynh
Hieu Q. Huynh
Texas Bar No. 24104003
hieu@huynhandhuynh.com
By: /s/ Tom O. Huynh
Tom Q. Huynh
Texas Bar No. 24106127
tom@huynhandhuynh.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 15 of 15
Preview
12/17/2020 4:27 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 49062686 2020-81187 / Court: 164 By: Joshua Hall Filed: 12/17/2020 4:27 PM CAUSE NO TEA BROTHERS CO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, Vv HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS KATELYNN HUA, VKH MEDIA NETWORK, LLC, TUAN A. KHUU & GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLC Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Tea Brothers Co., a Texas corporation (“Plaintiff’) and files their Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures against Katelynn Hua, VKH Media Network, LLC, Tuan A. Khuu & Global Law Group, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) for good and sufficient cause of action, Plaintiff would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following: L Monetary Relief and Discovery Control Plan 1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3 and affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the expedited actions process in Tex. R. Civ. P. 169, because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000.00, Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(4). LL Parties 2 Plaintiff is a Texas corporation in Harris County, Texas. 3 Defendant, Katelynn Hua, (herein after individually as “Defendant Hua”) is an Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 1 of 15 individual residing in Harris County and can be served with process at 6515 Winter Garden Ct., Houston, Texas, 77083 or wherever she may be found 4 Defendant, VKH Media Network, LLC, (herein after individually as “Defendant VKH”) is a California limited liability company doing business in Harris County and can be served with process through its registered agent for service of process listed in the records of the California Secretary of State as LegalZoom.com, Inc (C2967349) at 5025 W. Roberts Drive, Santa Ana, California 92704 or wherever it may be found. 5 Defendant Tuan A. Khuu, (herein after individually as “Defendant Khuu”) is an individual residing in Oklahoma and can be served with process at his place of business listed on his website: https://globallawgroup.us/houston at 9440 Bellaire Blvd., Houston, Texas, 77036 or wherever he may be found. 6 Defendant Global Law Group, LLC, (herein after individually as “Defendant Global”) is an Oklahoma limited liability company doing business in Harris County and can be served with process through its registered agent for service of process listed in the records of the Oklahoma Secretary of State as Tuan A. Khuu at 6508 NW 127TH, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142 or wherever he may be found. il. Jurisdiction and Venue 7 This court has jurisdiction over the claim because the damages sought are within the jurisdictional limits of the court. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000.00 and all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled. 8 Venue is proper in Harris County because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Harris County, Texas. Specifically, this matter relates to a contract for the sale of goods transacted by parties residing in Harris County, Texas Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 2 of 15 and causing injury and damages in Harris County, Texas including torts committed against Plaintiff in Harris County, Texas. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042 (1) & (2). A tort suit for damages may be brought in the county and precinct in which the injury was inflicted Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §15.0093 Iv. Factual Background 9 Plaintiff is a Texas corporation, with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. During the month of May 2020!, Plaintiff and Defendants Hua and VKH engaged in discussions and negotiations for the sale and procurement of thirty thousand (30,000) boxes of 100 count powder-free nitrile examination gloves at a sales price of Seven Dollars ($7.00 USD) per box with an aggregate total purchase price of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD).” Plaintiff hereby attaches a copy of the Contract as Exhibit A and incorporates it by reference 10. These discussions and negotiations culminated with the Plaintiff and Defendants Hua and VKH executing a Sale Purchase Agreement for Delivery of Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves on or about May 28, 2019, (herein after the “Contract”). Please see Exhibit B - Text Message between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff executed the Contract as the Buyer through its agent Tony Nguyen. Defendants Hua and VKH executed the Contract as the Seller both individually and through VKH’s agent Hua.* 11 The Contract expressly states that shipping of thirty thousand (30,000) boxes of 100 count powder-free nitrile examination gloves (herein after the “Goods”), at a sales price of | See Exhibit A Sale Purchase Agreement For Delivery Of Powder Free Nitrile Examination Gloves on or about May 28, 2019, (herein after the “Contract”). Id. 5 See Exhibit A- Contract Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 3 of 15 Seven Dollars ($7.00 USD) per box with an Contract aggregate total purchase price of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) would commence “5-7 business days after the contract signing date”. Please see Exhibit A - The Contract 12. Furthermore, the Contract expressly states “[e]scrow, fund released upon receipt of products.”* Please see Exhibit A - The Contract. 13 On or about May 29, 29020 — Defendant Hua individually, and Defendant VKH acting through Defendant VKH’s agent, Defendant Hua introduced Plaintiff to Defendant Khuu through What’sApp messages.° 14. In a series of What’sApp messages Plaintiff expressly sought to solidify terms of the agreement and requested verification of the character, quality and security of the account to which Plaintiff was to deposit the Contract aggregate total purchase price of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD). Plaintiff further sought to verify the terms of the transaction and expressly required the account to be an escrow account as expressed in the Contract. Defendants provided Plaintiff with Defendant Global’s bank wiring instructions Defendant Hua replied, “it is a trust fund/escrow account 7 15. On June 1, 2020, Plaintiff wire transferred One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars ($105,000.00 USD)* to Defendant Hua’s escrow account. This amount represented one-half of the Contract aggregate total purchase price paid by Plaintiff. Please see Exhibit C - Wire Transfer Confirmations. 16. On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff wire transferred One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars ‘Id. SId. ° See Exhibit B — Text message between Plaintiff and Defendants ‘Id, 8 See Exhibit C — Wire transfer confirmation. Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 4 of 15 ($105, 000.00 USD) to Defendant Hua’s escrow account. This amount represented the second half of the Contract aggregate total purchase price paid by Plaintiff. Please see Exhibit C - Wire Transfer Confirmation 17. From May 31, 2020 — July 8, 2020 Defendants Hua, and VKH and Plaintiff were in constant and regular communications regarding the progress of the shipment of goods.” During these communications Plaintiff and Defendants exchanged communications regarding the order, price, quantity and quality of shipment of Goods. Defendants assured Plaintiff that Defendants Hua and VKH would be able to satisfy all terms of the agreement. 18 On or about July 9, 2020, Plaintiff asked Defendant Khuu for an update, Defendant Khuu replied he’s been sick and ou t,10 19. On or about July 16, 2020, Plaintiff requested an update on the shipment order for pick up from Defendants. Defendant Hua informed Plaintiff that “the funds will be released when all parties agree and sign after inspection.” The Goods had not been shipped and Defendant Hua represented to Plaintiff the funds were still in escrow and had not been released. Plaintiff then stated he wanted to cancel the order pursuant to the Contract and demanded the funds be released. Plaintiff asked Defendant Hua if she is opposed from signing the documents required to return Plaintiffs funds. Defendant did not respond to question. Please see Exhibit D - Defendant Text Message Responses. 20. By July 29, 2020 Plaintiff and Defendants’ communications broke down and formal demand was sent for the return of escrowed funds. Please see Exhibit E- Demand Letter v. Causes of Action Count 1a- Breach of Contract against Defendants Hua and VKH ° See Exhibit B- Text message between Plaintiff and Defendants 10 Ig. Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 5 of 15 21. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-20 as though fully restated herein. 22. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants Hua and VKH executed a valid and enforceable written contract. Please see Exhibit A - The Contract. The Contract provided that Plaintiff would deposit the total purchase price amount of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) into Defendants Khuu and Global’s escrow account for the purchase of the Goods, and that Defendants would deliver the Goods to a designated location. 23 Plaintiff fully performed Plaintiff’s contractual obligations and all conditions precedent to obligate performance of Defendants’ duties. On June 1° 2020, Plaintiff wired One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars into Defendant Hua escrow account. Defendant Hua escrow account was being managed and secured by Defendant Khuu. Defendant Khuu was introduced to Plaintiff by Defendant Hua as her attorney. Defendant Khuu guaranteed Plaintiff his job was to secure the funds in escrow account and release funds when all parties agreed after inspection of shipment goods. Defendant Khuu than reassured his legal office had been in practice for twenty- seven years and his trust account is safe to use for escrow. Plaintiff wired details and supporting documents. 24. Defendants breached the contract by not delivering the Goods. 25. Defendants’ breach caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following damages: Actual Damages of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD); Out-of- Pocket Damages; Restitution and Rescission Damages; Quantum Meruit; Unjust Enrichment; Nominal Damages; Interest; Court Costs; and Attorney Fees. Count 1b- Breach of Contract against Defendants Khuu and Global 26. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-25 as though fully Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 6 of 15 restated herein. 27. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants Khuu and Global entered into a valid and enforceable contract that was performable within one year. By this contract, the Parties agreed that Plaintiff would deposit the total purchase price amount of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) into Defendants Khuu’s and Global’s escrow account for the purchase of the goods, and that Defendants Khuu and Global would safeguard the funds and oll that “[e]scrow, fund released upon receipt of products. 28 Plaintiff fully performed Plaintiff’s contractual obligations and all conditions precedent to obligate performance of Defendants’ duties. Plaintiff wired details and supporting documents as confirmation of completion of Plaintiff’s duties. 29. Defendants Hua and VKH did not deliver the Goods. Plaintiff has not received the Goods. Plaintiff has not authorized Defendants Khuu and Global to release the funds to Defendants Hua and VKH. However, Defendants Khuu and Global released funds without Plaintiff’s authorization 30. Defendants Khuu and Global breached the contract’s express term that “[e]scrow, funds [would be] released upon receipt of products.”!? Defendants Khuu and Global also breached the express warranty that the funds will be released when all parties agree after inspection. '° 31 Defendants Khuu and Global’s breach caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following damages: Actual Damages of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD); Out-of-Pocket Damages; Restitution and Rescission Damages; Quantum Meruit; Unjust 1 See Exhibit A — Contract ? See Exhibit A — Contract 13 See Exhibit B- Text message between Plaintiff and Defendants . Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 7 of 15 Enrichment; Nominal Damages; Interest; Court Costs; and Attorney Fees. Count 2- Conversion 32. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-31 as though fully restated herein. 33. The elements of a cause of action for conversion are the following 1 the plaintiff owned, possessed, or had the right to immediate possession of property; ii the property was personal property; ili the defendant wrongfully exercised dominion or control over the property; iv. the plaintiff suffered injury. 34. The elements can be found in the following: Green Int'l v. Solis, 951 $.W.2d 384, 391 (Tex.1997) (element 3); United Mobile Networks, L.P. v. Deaton, 939 §.W.2d 146, 147 (Tex.1997) (element 4); Bandy v. First State Bank, 835 S.W.2d 609,622 (Tex.1992) (element 3); Waisath v. Lack's Stores, 474 S.W.2d 444,447 (Tex.1971) (element 3); Presley v. Cooper, 284 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Tex.1955) (element 3); Lawyers Title Co. v. J.G. Cooper Dev. Inc., 424 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (elements 1-4); Cuidado Casero Home Health v. Ayuda Home Health Care Servs., 404 S.W.3d 737,748 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013, no pet.) (elements 1-3); NXCESS Motor Cars, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 317 $.W.3d 462,470 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (elements 1, 3) 35. Plaintiff owned, possessed, or had the right to immediate possession of property, namely Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD). 36. The Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) was personal business property. Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 8 of 15 37. Defendants Khuu and Global wrongfully exercised dominion or control over the property when they released the property to Defendants Hua and VKH. 38. Defendants Hua and VKH wrongfully exercised dominion or control over the property when they used the funds to their own benefit. 39. Plaintiff suffered injury because it does not have the Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD) nor does it have the benefit of the bargain, the Goods. Count 2- Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Defendants Khuu and Global 40. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-39 as though fully restated herein 41 The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the following: i. The plaintiff and defendant had a fiduciary relationship. ii. The defendants breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff. iii. The defendants’ breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, or benefit to the defendants. 42. The elements can be found in the following: First United Pentecostal Ch. v. Parker, 514 §.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex.2017) (elements 1-3); Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tex.1999) (element 2), Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp., 160 S.W.2d 509, 513-14 (Tex.1942) (elements 1, 2, 3(2)); E-Learning LLC v. AT&T Corp., 517 S.W.3d 849, 861 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (elements 1-3); Jordan v. Lyles, 455 S.W.3d 785,792 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2015, no pet.) (elements 1-3); Heritage Gulf Coast Props. Ltd. v. Sandalwood Apts., Inc., 416 S.W.3d 642, 650 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (elements 1-3); Graham Mortg. Corp. v. Hall, 307 $.W.3d 472,479 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (elements 1-3); Plotkin v. Joekel, 304 S.W.3d 455, 479 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 9 of 15 (elements 1-3); Beck v. Law Offices of Edwin J. (Ted) Terry Jr.,P.C., 284 $.W.3d 416, 429 (Tex.App.-Austin 2009, no pet.) (elements 1-3(1)); Kelly v. Gaines, 181 S.W3d 394, 414 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005) (elements 1-3), rev'd on other grounds 235 $.W.3d 179 (Tex.2007); Hartford Gas. Ins. v. Walker Cty. Agency, Inc. , 808 S.W.2d 681, 687- 88 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no writ) (elements 1, 2). 43 The Plaintiff and Defendants Khuu and Global had a fiduciary relationship. Plaintiff expressly asked that the funds to be placed in an escrow account. Defendants Khuu and Global expressly stated the funds would be safeguarded in an escrow account used in his law practice. Defendants Khuu and Global expressly stated he would act as an escrow agent for the transaction and to Plaintiff to safeguard Plaintiff’s funds. 44, Defendants Khuu and Global expressly stated he would act as an escrow and that funds would not be release without express instructions and per the terms of the contract Defendants Khuu and Global released the funds without express instructions from the Plaintiff and in direct contradiction to the terms of the Contract. Defendants Khuu and Global breached their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. 45. Defendants Khuu’s and Global's breach resulted in injury to the Plaintiff, and a benefit to the Defendants. Count 3 DTPA Claim against Defendants 46. Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-45 as though fully restated herein 47. Plaintiff is a consumer under the DTPA because Plaintiff sought goods by purchase. '* 4 Consumer Status Under DTPA,” ch. 8, §2.1; “ chart 8-1 Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 10 of 15 48. Defendants Hua and Khuu are individuals that can be sued under the DTPA. 49. Defendants VKH and Global are limited liability companies and defined as persons that can be sued under the DTPA.° 50. Defendants violated the DTPA when Defendants engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices that Plaintiff relied on to Plaintiff’s detriment 51 Specifically, Defendants Hua and NKH represented that the Goods had characteristics, uses, or benefits that they did not have, and that the goods were of a particular standard, quality, or grade although they are of another. 52. Additionally, Defendants Khuu and Global warranted that the funds will be released when all parties agreed after inspection. Defendants also breached the contract’s express term that “[e]scrow, funds [would be] released upon receipt of products. 53 Failure to complete work required to be performed under contract is a breach of the warranty of “good and workmanlike manner.” LaBella v. Charlie Thomas, Inc., 942 S.W.2d 127, 135 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997). 54, Defendants violated the DTPA when defendant engaged in an unconscionable action or course of action that, to Plaintiff’s detriment, took advantage of plaintiff’s lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity to a grossly unfair degree. Specifically, Defendants took advantage of Plaintiff, when Plaintiff said that it was his first time doing an escrow transaction and Defendants took Plaintiff’s $210,000.00 in escrow without providing the bargained for exchange. 55 Plaintiff gave Defendants notice as required by Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.505(a). Attached as Exhibit E is a copy of the notice letter sent to Defendants, : DTPA defendant,” ch. 8, §2.2 Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 11 of 15 which is incorporated by reference. 56. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a producing cause of Plaintiff’s injury, which resulted in the following damages: Economic Damages of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00 USD); Interest; Court Costs; and Attorney Fees. 57. As stated supra, Defendant acted intentionally, which entitles Plaintiff to recover treble economic damages under Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.50(b)(1). Count 4 Negligent Misrepresentation against Defendants 58 Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-57 as though fully restated herein 59. The elements of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are the following 1 The Defendants made a representation to the Plaintiff in the course of the Defendants’ business or in a transaction in which the Defendants had an interest. As stated supra, Defendants represented to Plaintiff Defendant Khuu and Global would act as escrow agent in order to facilitate Defendants Hua and VKH to sell the Goods to Plaintiff. Defendants represented that Plaintiff’s funds would be safeguarded in a law firm escrow account until Goods were received and/or instructions to release were expressly given by Plaintiff. i The Defendants supplied false information for the guidance of others. The Defendants expressly stated Defendant Khuu was practicing attorney in Texas with offices in Texas and would act as an escrow agent and attorney under the laws and bar of the State of Texas. These statements were false. iti The Defendants did not exercise reasonable care or competence in Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 12 of 15 obtaining or communicating the information. iv The Plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants Hua’s and VKH’s introduction of Defendants” Khuu and Global as their attorney and licensed in Texas to practice law and act as an escrow agent Defendants Khuu and Global confirmed these statements to Plaintiff. 60. The elements can be found in the following: McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. FE. Appling Interests, 991 S.W.2d 787, 791 (Tex.1999) (elements 1-5); American Tobacco Co. y. Grinnell, 951 §.W.2d 420, 436 (Tex.1997) (element 4); Federal Land Bank Ass ’n v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex.1991) (elements 1-5); Camp Mystic, Inc. v. Eastland, 390 S.W.3d 444, 458 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. granted, judgm’t vacated w.rm.) (elements 1-5); Brown & Brown v. Omni Metals, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 361, 384 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (elements 1-5); Nazareth Int'l v. J.C. Penney Co., 287 S.W.3d 452, 460 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (elements 1-5); Johnson v. Baylor Univ, 188 S.W.3d 296, 302 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, pet. denied) (element1-5); Wright’s v. Red River Fed. Credit Un., 71 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex.App. Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (elements 1-5); Zipp Indus. v. Ranger Ins., 39 S.W.3d 658, 668 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (elements 1-5); see also D.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsboro ISD, 973 S.W.2d 662, 663-64 (Tex.1998) (distinguishing narrower scope of liability for negligent misrepresentation from liability for fraudulent inducement). VII. Alternative Pleading: 61 The foregoing facts and theories are pled cumulatively and alternatively with no election or waiver of rights or remedies. Vu. Conditions Precedent 62. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claims have been performed or have occurred. 63. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful threats and acts against the Plaintiff, Plaintiff Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 13 of 15 has suffered the following damages and seeks recovery of the same: 1 Injunctive relief; i actual damages; iii exemplary damages; 1V. prejudgment and post judgment interest; v court costs; vi reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and expenses incurred herein, including contingent fees for appeal; and vii all other relief to which plaintiff is entitled VIII, Rule 193.7 Notice 64. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby gives notice to Defendants that they intend to use all documents produced by each party in pretrial and trial as self-authenticating evidence to the extent allowed under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. IX. Request For Disclosur 65 Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, plaintiff requests that defendant disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2. X. Prayer 66. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that judgment against Defendants in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of Court, and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled by law and equity Respectfully submitted, HUYNH & HUYNH, PLLC 7670 Woodway Drive, Suite 342 Houston, Texas 77063-1520 Phone: 713-622-1111 Fax: 713-583-4578 Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures age 14 of 15 By: /s/ Hieu QO. Huynh Hieu Q. Huynh Texas Bar No. 24104003 hieu@huynhandhuynh.com By: /s/ Tom O. Huynh Tom Q. Huynh Texas Bar No. 24106127 tom@huynhandhuynh.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiffs Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures Page 15 of 15