Zheng v. Maroun

Background

Ran Zheng initially sued Joseph Maroun Jr., Joseph Maroun Sr., Linyue Luan, Fredrick William Voigtmann, and the Law Office of Fred Voigtmann regarding conduct connected to Zheng’s application to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. Zheng had hired Voigtmann and the law office as her attorneys in connection with an EB-5 visa. Her amended complaint named only Voigtmann and the law office as defendants, but it alleged misconduct that went beyond simply providing legal advice.

Motion and procedural rulings

Voigtmann and the law office filed a motion to strike. A motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) can remove from a pleading matter that is insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court explained that Rule 12(f) does not authorize striking a claim for damages merely because the damages may be legally unavailable. The court therefore treated the request concerning punitive damages as a motion to dismiss instead.

Zheng argued that the defendants could not bring another motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) because they had previously filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(3). The court rejected that procedural objection and addressed the defendants’ arguments. The court also granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Punitive damages

The defendants argued that Zheng’s allegations about their immigration-related legal services did not support punitive damages because they lacked facts showing a wrongful motive, intent, or purpose. Under California law, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. The court explained that intentional conduct alone is not enough; the allegations must show aggravating circumstances, such as spite, an evil or fraudulent motive, or a conscious and deliberate disregard of others’ interests.

Zheng argued that she had alleged that the defendants conspired with the other individuals she initially sued. The court found that the complaint paragraphs she identified did not actually allege a conspiracy. The court also found that allegations that the defendants failed to act in her best interest, provided negligent legal advice and services, and interfered with prospective economic advantage did not allege the required aggravated conduct. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Zheng’s request for punitive damages, with leave to amend.

Constructive trust

A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that requires an identifiable property interest, the claimant’s right to that property, and another party’s wrongful acquisition or possession of it. The court found that Zheng had not alleged that the defendants wrongfully possessed her property. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Zheng’s request for a constructive trust, with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and allowed Zheng to amend her complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the order. The court stated that any second amended complaint had to be filed by November 15, 2022. The order also granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice and vacated the hearing scheduled for October 31, 2022.