Opinion
Case No. 5:15-cv-02315 VAP (SPx)
08-20-2018
REPET, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SHUBIN "VINCENT" ZHAO, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. SHUBIN "VINCENT" ZHAO, an individual, Counterclaimant, v. REPET, INC., a California Corporation, and ROES 1-10, Counterdefendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT
This action came on regularly for trial between June 12, 2018, and June 20, 2018, in Courtroom 8A of this United States District Court, the Honorable Virginia A. Phillips presiding. The Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, Repet, Inc. ("Repet"), appeared by attorneys Anthony Dain, Brian Kennedy, and S. Michael Lee of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. Defendant and Counterclaimant, Shubin "Vincent" Zhao ("Zhao"), appeared by Brian Neach and Bilal Essayli of Pacheco & Neach P.C.
A jury of eight persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified, and documentary evidence was introduced and received into evidence. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned the following special verdict:
JURY VERDICT
We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under the instructions of this court as our verdict in this case:
I. FINDINGS ON REPET INC.'S CLAIMS
Question No. 1 : Did Repet, Inc. ("Repet") prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Shubin "Vincent" Zhao ("Zhao") is liable to Repet for fraud?
___Yes X No.
Question No. 2 : Did Zhao prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Repet's claim of fraud is barred by the applicable statute of limitations?
___Yes ___ No
Question No. 3 : Did Repet prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Zhao is liable to Repet for intentional interference with contractual relations?
___Yes X No
Question No. 4 : Did Zhao prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Repet's claim of intentional interference with contractual relations is barred by the applicable statute of limitations?
___Yes ___ No
Question No. 5 : Did Repet prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Zhao is liable to Repet for breach of fiduciary duty?
X Yes ___ No
Question No. 6 : Did Zhao prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Repet's claim of breach of fiduciary duty is barred by the applicable statute of limitations??
___Yes X No
Question No. 7 : Did Repet prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Zhao is liable to Repet for conversion?
X Yes ___ No
Question No. 8 : Did Zhao prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Repet's claim of conversion is barred by the applicable statute of limitations?
___Yes X No
Question No. 9 : What is the total amount of Repet's damages caused by Zhao?
MONETARY: $ $1,634,327
SHARES OF REPET'S COMMON STOCK: 0
OTHER: Toyota Camry Title
Question No. 10 : Did Repet prove with clear and convincing evidence that Zhao engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud?
___Yes X No
Question No. 11 : What are the punitive damages, if any, that you assess against Zhao?
TOTAL: $__________
II. FINDINGS ON ZHAO'S COUNTERCLAIM
Question No. 12 : Did Zhao prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Repet is liable to Zhao for breach of an oral agreement for severance?
___Yes X No
Question No. 13 : What is the total amount of Zhao's damages, caused by Repet?
TOTAL: $__________
You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it accurately reflects your uninmous determinations. The Presidng Juror should then sign and date the verdict form in the spaces below and notify the bailiff that you have reached a verdict. The Presiding Juror should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought back into the courtroom. Dated: 6/20/2018
By: /s/ [name redacted]
Presiding Juror
On February 9, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Counterdefendant Repet, Inc. on Counterclaimant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao's claims of Breach of Contract and Money Had and Received.
On June 11, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Repet, Inc.'s claim of Unjust Enrichment and Counterclaimant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao's claim of Indemnification.
By reason of the verdict and Orders described above, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. Plaintiff Repet, Inc.'s claim of Unjust Enrichment is hereby dismissed with prejudice;
2. Counterclaimant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao's claim of Indemnification is hereby dismissed with prejudice;
3. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Repet, Inc. against Defendant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao on the Complaint as to its claims of Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Conversion;
4. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao on Plaintiff Repet, Inc.'s claims of Fraud and Deceit and Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations;
5. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Counterdefendant Repet, Inc. on Counterclaimant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao's claims of Breach of Oral Contract, Breach of Contract, and Money Had and Received;
6. Judgment is entered in favor of Repet, Inc. and against Defendant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao on the Complaint in the amount of $1,634,327, along with the title to the Toyota Camry. Defendant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao is hereby ordered to deliver title the tile of the Toyota Camry to Repet, Inc., without any liens, claims, or other encumbrances, within 14 days of the date of this judgment.
7. Plaintiff Repet, Inc. is entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest on its judgment against Defendant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao pursuant to California Civil Code 3288 in the amount of $437,238.43;
8. Plaintiff Repet, Inc. shall recover from Defendant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao Plaintiff its costs of suit incurred herein of to an award of $__________ to be taxed by the Clerk of Court;
9. Plaintiff Repet, Inc. is also entitled to an award of post-judgment interest on the total amount of the judgment entered against Defendant Shubin "Vincent" Zhao, including pre-judgment interest, which shall accrue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), from the date on which final judgment, with amendments, is entered until paid in full, together with costs as provided by law.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ENTERED. JUDGMENT IS DEEMED ENTERED AS OF THE DATE SET FORTH BELOW. Dated: August 20, 2018
/s/_________
Hon. Virginia A. Phillips
Chief United States District Court Judge