Hermann v. Veluz-Nepomuceno
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-07704
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Noah Hermann v. Brian Veluz-Nepomuceno, Judge Donato granted Percival Ong’s dismissal motion, allowed amendment, and set deadlines for the other defendants.
Noah Hermann; Percival Ong, whose claims were dismissed but who remains subject to a possible amended complaint; Brian Veluz-Nepomuceno and Midnight Hub, against whom default had been entered and as to whom Hermann may seek default judgment; and Rooms.tv, which faces a possible dismissal for lack of service.
What happened
In Noah Hermann v. Brian Veluz-Nepomuceno, the court granted defendant Percival Ong’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims against Ong because the complaint did not adequately allege that he sold or solicited securities, controlled the alleged sellers, or personally committed the fraud underlying the state-law claims.
The court granted Hermann permission to file an amended complaint against Ong by September 22, 2026. The amendment may not add claims or defendants without the court’s permission. Brian Veluz-Nepomuceno and Midnight Hub had already been found in default, and Hermann may seek a judgment against them by that same deadline. Rooms.tv had not been shown to have been served, so the court ordered Hermann to explain by September 22 why that defendant should not be dismissed.
Judge James Donato issued the order on September 1, 2026. The order warned that claims could be dismissed under the federal rules if Hermann misses the deadlines.
The detailed version
- Hermann v. Veluz-Nepomuceno · No. 3:24-cv-07704
- James Donato
- Sept. 1, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Noah Hermann sued Brian Veluz-Nepomuceno, Rooms.tv, Midnight Hub, and Percival Ong. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act and state-law claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.
Rulings concerning Percival Ong
Ong, who was representing himself, moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion.
The court dismissed the first and second Securities Act claims against Ong because the complaint did not adequately allege that he was a statutory “seller.” The complaint did not allege that Ong offered or sold a security or actively solicited an offer to buy one. It instead identified Veluz-Nepomuceno, Rooms.tv, and Midnight Hub—not Ong—as the alleged statutory sellers.
The court also dismissed the third claim, under Section 15 of the Securities Act, against Ong. That claim alleged that Ong was a controlling person who caused Rooms.tv and Midnight Hub to sell and promote unregistered securities. The court concluded that the claim conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Pinter v. Dahl because the complaint did not adequately allege the participation required for liability connected to Section 12.
The court dismissed the claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law as against Ong. Because those claims were based on fraud, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) required the complaint to describe the alleged misconduct with particular detail. The court found that the complaint did not identify specific misconduct by Ong. The court therefore dismissed Hermann’s claims against Ong in toto, meaning entirely.
The court granted Hermann’s request to amend. An amended complaint must be filed by September 22, 2026, and it may not add new claims or defendants without express permission from the court. If no amended complaint is filed by that date, the claims against Ong will be dismissed under Rule 41(b).
Other defendants
Default had been entered against Veluz-Nepomuceno and Midnight Hub on November 25, 2025. Because Hermann had taken no action against them since then, the court allowed him to file a motion for default judgment by September 22, 2026. If he does not file that motion by the deadline, the claims against those defendants will also be dismissed under Rule 41(b).
The docket did not show that Rooms.tv had been served, and the 90-day service period had expired. The court ordered Hermann to show cause in writing by September 22, 2026, explaining why Rooms.tv should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m).
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a motion to dismiss based on pleading deficiencies and also addressed amendment, default-judgment procedures, and service. The order did not decide the underlying securities or fraud allegations after a trial or merits-based motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.