arrow left
arrow right
  • Sparx Logistics Hong Kong Ltd., Spark Logistics Us Limited v. Shoez, Inc., Brands Unlimited, Gif Services, Inc., Deepak Ramchandani a/k/a Deepak Parikh, Gina Napolitano Commercial - Contract document preview
  • Sparx Logistics Hong Kong Ltd., Spark Logistics Us Limited v. Shoez, Inc., Brands Unlimited, Gif Services, Inc., Deepak Ramchandani a/k/a Deepak Parikh, Gina Napolitano Commercial - Contract document preview
  • Sparx Logistics Hong Kong Ltd., Spark Logistics Us Limited v. Shoez, Inc., Brands Unlimited, Gif Services, Inc., Deepak Ramchandani a/k/a Deepak Parikh, Gina Napolitano Commercial - Contract document preview
						
                                

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