Ying Qing Lu v. Lezell
919 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege defrauding investments by Lezell and Ghosh under RICO and related state-law claims.
- Ying Qing Lu filed the initial complaint on Oct. 13, 2011; later amendments added Bridges Financial, LLC, Oklahoma Shelf Exploration and Development, LLC, and Afshin Afsharnia.
- Bridges Financial, LLC’s RICO claim was previously dismissed with prejudice in Bridges I; Bridges Financial is now alleged again in this suit.
- The court granted a Third Amended Complaint, added three new plaintiffs, and then Clerk’s default was entered and later vacated.
- Defendants move to dismiss on grounds including res judicata, statute of limitations, and lack of fiduciary relationship; the court addresses each in turn.
- The court ultimately dismisses Bridges Financial, LLC, and the breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims with prejudice, while denying the RICO dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO sufficiency of pleading | Lu argues RICO facts are adequate | Lezell/Ghosh contend pleadings are insufficient | RICO survives at this stage |
| Res judicata as to Bridges Financial | Bridges Financial asserts new RICO claim | Prior Bridges I precludes relitigation | Bridges Financial dismissed with prejudice as precluded by res judicata |
| Breach of contract timeliness | Lu’s contract claim timely | Three-year statute of limitations barring the claim | Untimely; dismissed with prejudice |
| Breach of fiduciary duty viability | A fiduciary relationship existed and claim viable | No fiduciary relationship; time-bar | No fiduciary relationship; also untimely; dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 513 F.3d 257 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (elements of claim preclusion; nucleus of facts)
- Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (same nucleus of facts for res judicata)
- Bridges v. Lezell Law, PC, 842 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D.D.C. 2012) (dismissal with prejudice of Bridges's prior RICO claim (Bridges I))
- Toomey v. Cammack, 345 A.2d 453 (D.C. 1975) (accrual of claims; tolling when injury knowledge is lacking)
- Pardue v. Ctr. City Consortium Schools of Archdiocese of Washington, Inc., 875 A.2d 669 (D.C. 2005) (statute of limitations accrues when claimant knows or should know of injury and cause)
- Lee v. Wolfson, 265 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2003) (tolling related to discovery of injury)
- Murray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 953 A.2d 308 (D.C. 2008) (limitations start when breach occurs)
- Bridges v. Lezell Law, PC, No. 11-1353, ECF No. 6 (Amended Complaint) (D.D.C. 2011) (initial Bridges RICO case relating to same parties and claims)