On February 21, 2017 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Spark Logistics Us Limited,
Sparx Logistics Hong Kong Ltd.,
and
Brands Unlimited,
Deepak Ramchandani
A K A Deepak Parikh,
Gif Services, Inc.,
Gina Napolitano,
Shoez, Inc.,
for Commercial - Contract
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2020 06:00 PM INDEX NO. 650884/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
SPARX LOGISTICS HONG KONG LTD.,
SPARX LOGISTICS USA LIMITED
Plaintiffs, Index No.: 650884/2017
vs. AFFIDAVIT OF DEEPAK
RAMCHANDANI IN
SHOEZ, INC., BRANDS UNLIMITED, LLC FURTHER SUPPORT OF
GIF SERVICES, INC., DEEPAK RAMCHANDANI
THE DEFENDANTS’
a/k/a DEEPAK PARIKH and
MOTION FOR
GINA NAPOLITANIO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
DEEPAK RAMCHANDANI, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am the sole owner of the defendant Shoez, Inc. (“Shoez”), the President of
the defendant Brands Unlimited, LLC (“Brands”), which I own together with my brother
and my father, and an individual defendant in this action. Accordingly, I am fully familiar
with this action and with the facts set forth herein.
2. This affidavit is respectfully submitted in further support of the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) in their favor against the
plaintiffs Sparx Logistics Hong Kong Ltd. and Sparx Logistics USA Limited (together, the
“Plaintiffs”), by dismissing this action in its entirety.
3. In support of this Motion I submitted an earlier affidavit dated December
23, 2019. The instant affidavit is now submitted to include additional information in
response to the Plaintiffs’ opposition.
1 of 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2020 06:00 PM INDEX NO. 650884/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2020
4. Shoez never received a bill from the Plaintiffs for the shipment of the goods
at issue in this action (the “Goods”), much less any goods they shipped to us. Nor did
Shoez receive an invoice from GIF for the services rendered by the Plaintiffs. My
understanding is that GIF was the party that paid the Plaintiffs for their services.
5. Ravissant and Shoez had a course of dealing whereby Shoez would inspect
goods prior to paying Ravissant. If the goods failed to conform in some way, Ravissant
and Shoez would negotiate a discounted price.
6. Shoez inspected each shipment of the Goods at issue and thereafter
informed Ravissant that the price would need to be adjusted prior to payment due to the
various issues with the Goods.
7. For the Goods herein, Shoez found that their prices required adjustments
due to delays in the shipments, the quality of the Goods, and incorrect prices contained
on the associated invoices.
8. Throughout the fall of 2015 and early 2016, Shoez and Ravissant attempted
to reach a resolution on the price of the Goods. It was during this time that I learned that
title to the corresponding bills of lading had been transferred to Habib Bank Zurich (Hong
Kong) Limited (“Habib Bank”).
9. While attempting to negotiate an adjusted price for the Goods, Ravissant
continued to send apparel that Shoez had purchased. Despite the offers to pay for the
Goods at issue, Manoj Panjabi, the owner of Ravissant, requested that Shoez first pay for
the new goods before he would adjust the price for the Goods at issue here. Ravissant
was paid for the new goods. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an
email exchange with Manoj Panjabi in November 2015, reflecting the parties’
negotiations.
10. The negotiations concerning the price adjustments for the Goods continued
into 2016. Again, Manoj Panjabi asked that Shoez make payments on new invoices before
the prices of the five invoices at issue here would be adjusted; but he did confirm that the
invoices reflecting the Goods at issue required price adjustments. Attached hereto as
2
2 of 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2020 06:00 PM INDEX NO. 650884/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2020
Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an email exchange with Manoj Panjabi reflecting
these communications.
11. As part of these discussions between Ravissant and Shoez, Shoez addressed
the chargebacks that had accumulated during its business relationship with Ravissant
due to numerous issues with various goods that had been purchased. The chargebacks
represented an amount including what Shoez had overpaid for goods and the amount by
which outstanding invoices needed to be reduced. The chargebacks were tracked as part
of Shoez’ ongoing account with Ravissant. By January 2016, the amount of chargebacks
had accumulated to approximately $240,000.00. See Exhibit 2 attached hereto.
12. Before the prices on the invoices for the Goods were properly adjusted and
before the Goods were paid for, Ravissant went out of business.
13. After Ravissant went out of business, Habib Bank did not seek payment for
the Goods from Shoez.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for partial
summary judgment be DENIED.
______________________
Deepak Ramchandani
Commonwealth of Virginia / County of Fairfax
Sworn to before me this
14th
___ day of January,
February 2020. And subscribed by Deepak Ramchandani.
_________________________
Notary Public
Notarized online using audio-video communication
3
3 of 3
Document Filed Date
February 14, 2020
Case Filing Date
February 21, 2017
Category
Commercial - Contract
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.