United States of America ex rel David Ji v. IMP International Inc. dba Unichem Enterprises and Tony Hang
Published: Jul. 5, 2019 | Result Date: May 10, 2019 |Case number: 2:14-cv-07203-MWF-PJW Verdict – Defense
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael S. Magnuson
(Law Offices of Michael S. Magnuson)
Molly J. Magnuson
(Law Offices of Michael S. Magnuson)
Defendant
Paul D. Murphy
(Murphy Rosen LLP)
for Hang
Daniel N. Csillag
(Murphy Rosen LLP)
for Hang
Jason L. Liang
(Liang Ly LLP)
for Unichem
John Khai Ly
(Liang Ly LLP)
for Unichem
Facts
Plaintiff United States of America ex rel. David JI filed suit against IMP International Inc. dba Unichem Enterprises and Tony Hang in relation to the food additive glycine.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that when defendants imported glycine from China, they mislabeled the food additive glycine as glucosamine to avoid paying anti-dumping duties. Plaintiff further contended that by underpaying duties, defendants were able to sell the glycine in the United States for significantly higher profit margins, thereby undercutting their competitors.
Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to pay custom duties owed on the food additive glycine. Plaintiff alleged a reverse False Claims Act violation, plus conspiracy to violate the False Claims Act.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:Defendants contended that plaintiff was Hang's former mentor and friend who became incensed when Hang started a competing company. Defendants contended this was plaintiff's fourth lawsuit against Hang over the last fifteen years, with each lawsuit part of plaintiff's longstanding efforts and vendetta to put Hang and his company out of business. Defendants further contended that plaintiff lied and presented knowingly false evidence to the federal government to place defendants in substantial civil and criminal jeopardy, as well as to cause Hang immigration problems. Defendants claimed that plaintiff's disinformation tactics effectively forced defendants' witnesses to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, which plaintiff then used to try to obscure his lack of evidence supporting his claims.
Damages
According to defense, plaintiff sought $33 million from defendants in compensatory and treble damages.
Result
The jury unanimously rejected plaintiff's claims and found that defendants were not liable for either a direct violation of the False Claims Act or a conspiracy to violate the Act.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390