Preview
1 NO FEE PER LABOR CODE
§§ 101, 101.5 &
2 GOV’T CODE §6103
3 Matthew Sirolly SBN 239984
Melvin Yee, SBN 241589
4
Labor Commissioner, Chief, Division of Labor
5 Standards Enforcement, State of California
320 W. 4th Street, Suite 600
6 Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone No. (213) 897-1511
7 Facsimile No. (213) 897-2877
8
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
LABOR COMMISSIONER, CHIEF, DLSE, STATE
10 OF CALIFORNIA
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF LOS ALAMEDA - UNLIMITED
13 LABOR COMMISSIONER, CHIEF, Case No.
14 DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS
ENFORCEMENT, STATE OF
COMPLAINT FOR:
15 CALIFORNIA
1. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT
16 Plaintiff, TRANSFER--INSOLVENCY
v. 2. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT
17 TRANSFER –FAILURE TO PAY
HAK CHUN NG aka DOMINIK NG, an
18 individual; JING WU, an individual; and REASONABLE EQUIVALENT VALUE
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 3. INTENTIONAL FRAUDULENT
19 TRANSFER
20 Defendants.
VERIFIED ANSWER REQUIRED
21 PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE § 446
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 -DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 1
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT-
LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 COMPLAINT
2 Plaintiff, LABOR COMMISSIONER, CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF LABOR
3 STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter “Labor
4 Commissioner” or “Plaintiff”), alleges as follows:
5 INTRODUCTION
6 1. Defendant Hak Ng owned and operated multiple Chinese food restaurants in California
7 located in the cities of Fremont, San Jose, and San Matro. After an investigation by Plaintiff in 2015,
8 she issued citations against Defendant Hak Ng and other entities associated with operating these
9 restaurants for numerous California Labor Code violations. The liabilities for these citations totaled
10 over $1.8 million dollars and included a failure to pay minimum wage to the restaurants’ employees.
11 Defendant Hak Ng and his citations co-defendants appealed the citations.
12 2. The administrative hearing officer affirmed the citations in August 2018 resulting in a total
13 liability of over $2.1 million dollars. Defendant Hak Ng and his citation co-defendants did not pay
14 the amounts found due to their extensive Labor Code violations. Resultantly, the citations were
15 entered with the appropriate California Superior court and twelve (2) judgments were issued against
16 Defendant Hak Ng and his citation co-defendants. These judgments were issued in November 2019,
17 March 2019, and July 2019.
18 3. Continued investigations by the Labor Commissioner, as well as publicly available records,
19 indicate Defendant Hak Ng’s appears to have transferred assets, including real property outside the
20 legal reach of the Unpaid Wages Judgments. Plaintiff further alleges these improper transfers
21 resulted in Defendant Hak Ng’s assets ultimately being owned in name of Defendant Jing Wu and/or
22 DOES 1-25.
23 4. The result, and alleged primary purpose, of these improper transfers appears to be evading
24 paying creditors, including the Unpaid Wages Judgments liabilities sought by Plaintiff California
25 Labor Commissioner. This lawsuit seeks to address improper transfers (including real property
26 transfers) for recovery of the unpaid wages and other debts owed arising from the Unpaid Wages
27 Judgments.
28
DEPARTMENT
OF 2
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 5. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted in this complaint
3 pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution, because statutes do not provide
4 these claims be adjudicated by any other trial court. Court jurisdiction over Defendants named herein
5 is proper because the conduct and transactions on which this complaint is based on, or occurred in,
6 the State of California and the assets fraudulently transferred or subject to the causes of action in this
7 Complaint are located in the State of California.
8 6. Venue is proper in this Court because the Defendants in this action operate and/or
9 reside in Alameda County. Additionally, the alleged improper transfers of assets appear to have
10 occurred in Alameda County. The two allegedly improperly transferred properties are located in
11 Alameda County.
12 PARTIES
13 7. PLAINTIFF LABOR COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 (herein after “Plaintiff” or “Labor Commissioner”). The Labor Commissioner is the head of the
15 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is under the California Department of Industrial
16 Relations. The Labor Commissioner is the California state agency that has the primary responsibility
17 of enforcing all provisions of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission orders
18 governing wages, hours and working conditions of California employees not specifically delegated
19 to another agency or division. (Labor Code §§61 and 95(a)). Labor Code section 1193.5 specifically
20 grants the Plaintiff the authority to “[i]nvestigate and ascertain the wages of all employees, and the
21 hours and working conditions of all employees employed in any occupation in the state.” The Labor
22 Commissioner's mission has the twin objectives of ensuring compliance with minimum labor
23 standards to protect workers from substandard conditions and of providing a level playing field for
24 employers that comply with California labor laws.
25 8. DEFENDANT HAK CHUN NG aka DOMINIK NG is a natural person. At all
26 times herein relevant he was over the age of eighteen (18). Plaintiff is informed and believes and on
27 that basis alleges that at all times relevant to this Complaint he resided or conducted business in
28 Alameda County, California.
DEPARTMENT
OF 3
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 9. DEFENDANT JING WU is a natural person. At all times herein relevant she was
2 over the age of eighteen (18). Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all
3 times relevant to this Complaint he resided or conducted business in Alameda County, California.
4 Public records indicate, and on information and belief, she is or was married to Defendant Hak Ng
5 during the relevant times of this Complaint.
6 10. DOE DEFENDANTS. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein
7 as DOES 1 through 25 are unknown to Plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff sues these Defendants by
8 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities
9 when ascertained.
10 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes that certain DOE Defendants aided and abetted the
11 wrongful acts of the others. Furthermore, Plaintiff is informed and believes, as applicable, that
12 certain DOE Defendants conspired to commit the wrongful acts forming the basis of this action.
13 12. As applicable, whenever and wherever this Complaint refers to any act by a
14 Defendant or Defendants (unless otherwise specified) such allegations and references shall also be
15 deemed to mean the acts and failure to act of each Defendant as applicable acting individually,
16 jointly, and/or severally.
17 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all times material to this complaint, certain
18 Defendants were the agent and/or joint employer of, or working in concert with, other certain Co-
19 Defendants and were acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or joint venture or
20 concerted activity. To the extent that this conduct or these omissions were perpetuated by certain
21 Defendants, the remaining Defendant, or Defendants as applicable, confirmed or ratified the conduct
22 or omissions. Plaintiff is informed and believes (as applicable), and on that basis alleges, certain
23 Defendants acted as alter egos of one another and/or a single enterprise at various times material to
24 the allegations of this complaint.
25 14. Whenever and wherever reference is made to individuals who are not named as
26 Defendants in this Complaint, but are, or were employees/agents, of other Defendants, or any of
27 them, such individuals at all relevant times acted on behalf of other Defendants within the scope of
28 their employment or agency.
DEPARTMENT
OF 4
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2 A. California Labor Commissioner Citations Issued Against Defendant Hak Ng and
3 Various Restaurant Businesses He Owned (or Operated) for Failing to Pay Minimum Wages
4 and Other Labor Code Violations
5 15. In 2015, Plaintiff, began investigating Defendant Hak Ng (“Defendant Ng”) and
6 several restaurants he owned or operated to determine if they were complying with the California
7 Labor Code.
8 16. Public records show these restaurants were incorporated or associated with at least
9 five California corporations (hereinafter referred to as “Mango Restaurants”).1 The Mango
10 Restaurants served Chinese cuisine and were located in the cities of Fremont, San Jose, and San
11 Mateo.
12 17. Defendant Ng and the Mango Restaurants were also investigated by the Alameda
13 County District Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Insurance, the State of California
14 Employment Development Department, and the United States Department of Labor for state and
15 federal law violations.
16 18. After an extensive investigation, including worker interviews and obtaining Mango
17 Restaurant employment records, the Labor Commissioner issued twelve (12) citations against
18 Defendant Ng, the Mango Restaurants, and another owner (or operator) Hai Jie Chen (collectively
19 referred to as the “Mango Restaurant Defendants”) in March and June 2017. These twelve citations
20 will be referred to as the “Mango Restaurant Citations.” The Mango Restaurant Citations addresses
21 California Labor Code violations that occurred up to three (3) years prior to date of their issuance in
22 2017.
23 19. The Mango Restaurant Citations assessed over $1.8 million in liability against the
24 Mango Restaurant Defendants arising from various California Labor Code violations.
25
26
1
27 The names of those companies are: i) Mango Jungle, a California corporation (terminated); ii)
Mango Garden, Inc., a California Corporation (terminated); iii) Mango Blaze Inc., a California
28 corporation (terminated); iv) Golden State San Jose Inc., a California corporation (terminated); and
Golden State San Mateo, a California corporation (terminated).
DEPARTMENT
OF 5
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 20. The investigation found Mango Restaurant employees worked 10 or more hours a
2 day while being paid less than the minimum wage and did not receive required meal and rest breaks,
3 overtime pay or split shift premiums. The investigation also found the Mango Restaurant Defendants
4 had paid its workers in cash and kept fifteen (15) percent for themselves, telling the workers the
5 deductions were collected to pay taxes.
6 B. Judgments Totaling over Two Million Dollars Issued Against Mango Restaurant
7 Defendants After Labor Commissioner Citations Affirmed
8 21. The Mango Restaurant Defendants, including Defendant Ng, appealed the Mango
9 Restaurant Citations.
10 22. Hearings for the Mango Restaurant Citations occurred in September 2017 as well as
11 in January and February of 2018. The hearings lasted over nine (9) days.
12 23. The Notice of Findings and Final Order for the Mango Restaurant Citations appeal
13 hearings was issued on August 15, 2018. It affirmed the Mango Restaurant Citations and included
14 assessing prejudgment interest against the Mango Restaurant Defendants. Total liability against the
15 Mango Restaurant Defendants exceeded $2.1 million dollars.
16 24. The Mango Restaurant Defendants failed to pay amounts necessary to satisfy the $2.1
17 million liability determination. Resultantly, twelve (12) judgments were issued by the superior courts
18 (with the appropriate jurisdiction) against the Mango Restaurant Defendants (“Unpaid Wages
19 Judgments”). Below is a table identifying the court case number, date the judgment was issued, and
20 the county issuing the judgment.
21
No. Court Number Superior Court
22 Issuing Judgment
23 1 HG18929944 Alameda
2 HG18930001 Alameda
24 3 HG18930016 Alameda
4 18CV337689 Santa Clara
25 5 18CV337691 Santa Clara
26 6 18CV337693 Santa Clara
7 19CV345704 Santa Clara
27 8 19CV352587 Santa Clara
9 18CIV06041 San Mateo
28 10 18CIV06046 San Mateo
DEPARTMENT
OF 6
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 11 18CLJ06054 San Mateo
12 18CIV06055 San Mateo
2
3
C. Defendant Hak Ng Transfers Real Property to Defendant Jing Wu Before
4
Issuance of the Unpaid Wages Judgments, But After the Adminisrative Final Order
5
Determining the $2.1 Million Liability
6
25. Public records at the Alameda County recorder’s office show that Defendant Ng
7
purchased the property located at 4193 Becerra Drive in Fremont, California (hereinafter “Becerra
8
Property”) in October 2015.
9
26. These public records show Defendant Ng owned the Becerra property until around
10
January 2019.
11
27. After Defendant Ng lost his appeal for the Mango Restaurant Citations, public
12
records show he transferred the Becerra property to Defendant Jing Wu for a nominal amount on or
13
about January 7, 2019.
14
28. Public records indicate the current owner of the Becerra property is Defendant Jing
15
Wu.
16
29. Public records at the Alameda County recorder’s office show that Defendant Ng
17
purchased the property located at 24645 Broadmore Avenue in Hayward, California (hereinafter
18
“Broadmore Property”) in November 2011.
19
30. These public records show Defendant Ng owned the Broadmore property until around
20
January 2019.
21
31. After Defendant Ng lost his appeal for the Mango Restaurant Citations, public record
22
show he transferred the Broadmore property to Defendant Jing Wu for a nominal amount on or about
23
January 7, 2019.
24
32. Public records indicate the current owner of the Broadmore property is Defendant
25
Wu.
26
27
28
DEPARTMENT
OF 7
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 D. The Unpaid Wages Judgments Against Mango Restaurant Defendants, including
2 Defendant Ng Remain Unsatisfied
3 33. Since the Unpaid Wages Judgments were issued in November 2018, March 2019, and
4 July 2019, the Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) have failed to voluntarily
5 satisfy them. As of December 2023, the outstanding balance (including accrued interest) is
6 approximately $1,370,707.24. This accounting includes a credit of $1,138,215.61 that was collected
7 by the Alameda County District Attorneys Office and remitted to Plaintiff to be disbursed to the
8 victims of the Mango Restaurants Defendants’ wage theft in 2019.
9 34. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the California courts issued a series of Emergency
10 Rules. Specifically, Rule 9 tolled the statutes of limitations for civil causes of actions. Emergency
11 Rule 9 (a) states in relevant part, “the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of actions
12 that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020.”
13
14 REQUIREMENT THAT ANY ANSWER FILED BY A DEFENDANT IN THIS
15 MATTER BE VERIFIED
16 35. California Code of Civil Procedure § 446 requires that answers filed in this civil matter be
17 verified. Section 446 states in relevant part, “Every pleading shall be subscribed by the party or his
18 or her attorney. When the state...or any officer of the state, or…public agency...is plaintiff, the
19 answer shall be verified,”
20
21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
22 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER – INSOLVENCY
23 (California Civil Code § 3439.05)
24 (Plaintiff against all Defendants)
25 31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the
26 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth herein.
27 32. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all Defendants.
28 33. Plaintiff alleges that from around 2013 until the Mango Restaurants ceased to operate
DEPARTMENT
OF 8
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 on or about 2016, its former employees accrued a right to payment against the Mango Restaurant
2 Defendants (including Defendant Ng) for their unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations
3 occurring at that time.
4 34. Further, Plaintiff’s right to payment for the Mango Restaurant Citations against
5 Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) accrued and was liquidated when the
6 citations were issued in 2017 and reaffirmed when the Final Order from the Mango Restaurant
7 Citations appeal was issued in 2018.
8 35. Plaintiff alleges that from 2013 until the present, Defendant Ng has been working and
9 generating substantial income to pay for his expenses as well as his family’s expenses. This work
10 included receiving monies from owning and operating the Mango Restaurants until they appeared to
11 cease to operate in 2016.
12 36. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2011 until on or around January 7, 2019,
13 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Becerra property.
14 37. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2015 until on or around January 7, 2019,
15 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Broadmore property.
16 38. Plaintiff alleges that since 2013, Defendant Ng has transferred assets, including cash
17 and other property to avoid paying creditors, including former Mango Restaurant employees and
18 Plaintiff for unpaid wages and other liabilities arising from his Labor Code violations.
19 39. Plaintiff alleges that these improper transfers by Defendant Ng include the transfer of
20 his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore properties to Defendant Jing Wu on or about
21 January 7, 2019 for nominal value.
22 40. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges from at least 2013 to the present,
23 Defendant Ng transferred substantial amounts of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and DOES 1-25,
24 including cash assets.
25 41. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the transfers of these assets occurred
26 through Defendants’ actions including Defendant Ng transfer of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and
27 Defendants 1-25 each for their benefit at the expense of Defendant Ng’s creditors, including creditor
28 Plaintiff and the former Mango Restaurant workers.
DEPARTMENT
OF 9
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 42. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that such fraudulent transfers took place
2 on or after the liabilities for the claims for the Unpaid Wages Judgments occurred in 2013 and have
3 continued to occur until the present.
4 43. Plaintiff alleges that the transfer or transfers of his assets (including the transfer of
5 ownership in the Becerra and Broadmore property) left Defendant Ng to become insolvent, or
6 remain insolvent, and unable to pay his debt to creditors, including Plaintiff and/or the former
7 employees at the time the debts were incurred to the present.
8 44. That Labor Commissioner alleges it has a right to payment from Defendant for the
9 various Labor Code violation liabilities as established by the Unpaid Wages Judgments for not less
10 than $1,138,215.61 as of August 2018. August 2018 is when the Final Order for the Mango
11 Restaurant Citations was issued.
12 45. Plaintiff is harmed because Defendant Ng’s alleged fraudulent transfer of assets to the
13 other Defendants left him unable to pay Plaintiff for the Labor Code violations, including the unpaid
14 wages of his former employees.
15 46. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged, Plaintiff has been generally
16 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of not less than the remaining amounts owed on the
17 Unpaid Wages Judgments. This is amount is at least $1,138,215.61.
18 47. On information and belief, and thereupon that basis, Plaintiff alleges each Defendant
19 included in this cause of action knowingly participated in, facilitated and conspired to accomplish
20 the alleged improper fraudulent asset transfers.
21 48. Each Defendant, including the named individuals, knowingly participate in,
22 facilitated, and conspired to accomplish the fraudulent transfers. These activities include transferring
23 or receiving assets including monies or real property ownership from Defendant Ng to other
24 Defendants.
25 49. Moreover, upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng had the ability
26 to pay amounts due to their employees between the time unpaid wages were earned and owed in
27 2013 until the present. Instead, Defendant Ng willfully failed to pay the wages owed, thus, Plaintiff
28 is entitled to additional treble damages under Labor Code § 206.
DEPARTMENT
OF 10
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER-- FAILURE TO PAY REASONABLE
3 EQUIVALENT VALUE
4 (California Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(2)(A))
5 (Plaintiff against all Defendants)
6 50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the
7 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth herein.
8 51. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all Defendants.
9 52. Plaintiff alleges that from around 2013 until the Mango Restaurants ceased to operate
10 on or about 2016, its former employees accrued a right to payment against the Mango Restaurant
11 Defendants (including Defendant Ng) for their unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations
12 occurring at that time.
13 53. Further, Plaintiff’s right to payment for the Mango Restaurant Citations against
14 Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) accrued and was liquidated when the
15 citations were issued in 2017 and reaffirmed when the Final Order from the Mango Restaurant
16 Citations appeal was issued in 2018.
17 54. Plaintiff alleges that from 2013 until the present, Defendant Ng has been working and
18 generating substantial income to pay for his expenses as well as his family’s expenses. This work
19 included receiving monies from owning and operating the Mango Restaurants until they appeared to
20 cease to operate in 2016.
21 55. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2011 until on or around January 7, 2019,
22 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Becerra property.
23 56. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2015 until on or around January 7, 2019,
24 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Broadmore property.
25 57. Plaintiff alleges that since 2013, Defendant Ng has transferred assets, including cash
26 and other property to avoid paying creditors, including former Mango Restaurant employees and
27 Plaintiff for unpaid wages and other liabilities arising from his Labor Code violations.
28 58. Plaintiff alleges that these improper transfers by Defendant Ng include the transfer of
DEPARTMENT
OF 11
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore properties to Defendant Jing Wu on or about
2 January 7, 2019 for nominal value.
3 59. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges from at least 2013 to the present,
4 Defendant Ng transferred substantial amounts of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and DOES 1-25,
5 including cash assets.
6 60. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the transfers of these assets occurred
7 through Defendants’ actions including Defendant Ng transfer of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and
8 Defendants 1-25 each for their benefit at the expense of Defendant Ng’s creditors, including creditor
9 Plaintiff and the former Mango Restaurant workers.
10 61. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that such fraudulent transfers took place
11 on or after the liabilities for the claims for the Unpaid Wages Judgments occurred in 2013 and have
12 continued to occur until the present.
13 62. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the alleged fraudulent transfer or
14 transfers were made from, Defendant Ng to other Defendants for no value, or less than reasonably
15 equivalent value.
16 63. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges at the time of the transfer or transfers,
17 Defendant Ng was engaged or was about to engage in business or transactions for which the
18 remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transactions.
19 64. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng intended that he incur, or believed, or reasonably
20 should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.
21 Specifically, Defnedant Ng’s transfer of his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore
22 property for nominal value left him unable to pay his creditors including Plaintiff.
23 65. That Labor Commissioner alleges it has a right to payment from Defendant for the
24 various Labor Code violation liabilities as established by the Unpaid Wages Judgments for not less
25 than $1,138,215.61 as of August 2018. August 2018 is when the Final Order for the Mango
26 Restaurant Citations was issued.
27
28
DEPARTMENT
OF 12
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 66. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendant Ng’s transfers of assets to the other
2 Defendants left him unable to pay Plaintiff for the Labor Code violations, including the unpaid
3 wages of its former employees.
4 67. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged, Plaintiff has been generally
5 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of not less than the remaining amounts owed on the
6 Unpaid Wages Judgments. This is amount is at least $1,138,215.61.
7 68. On information and belief, and thereupon that basis, Plaintiff alleges each Defendant
8 included in this cause of action knowingly participated in, facilitated and conspired to accomplish
9 the alleged improper fraudulent asset transfers.
10 69. Each Defendant, including the named individuals, knowingly participate in,
11 facilitated, and conspired to accomplish the fraudulent transfers. These activities include transferring
12 or receiving assets including monies or real property ownership from Defendant Ng to other
13 Defendants.
14 70. Moreover, upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng had the ability
15 to pay amounts due to their employees between the time unpaid wages were earned and owed in
16 2013 until the present. Instead, Defendant Ng willfully failed to pay the wages owed, thus, Plaintiff
17 is entitled to additional treble damages under Labor Code § 206.
18
19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
20 INTENTIONAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER
21 (California Civil Code § 3439.04 and California Common Law)
22 (Plaintiff against all Defendants)
23 71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the
24 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth herein.
25 72. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all defendants.
26 73. Plaintiff alleges that from around 2013 until the Mango Restaurants ceased to operate
27 on or about 2016, its former employees accrued a right to payment against the Mango Restaurant
28 Defendants (including Defendant Ng) for their unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations
DEPARTMENT
OF 13
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 occurring at that time.
2 74. Further, Plaintiff’s right to payment for the Mango Restaurant Citations against
3 Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) accrued and was liquidated when the
4 citations were issued in 2017 and reaffirmed when the Final Order from the Mango Restaurant
5 Citations appeal was issued in 2018.
6 75. Plaintiff alleges that from 2013 until the present, Defendant Ng has been working and
7 generating substantial income to pay for his expenses as well as his family’s expenses. This work
8 included receiving monies from owning and operating the Mango Restaurants until they appeared to
9 cease to operate in 2016.
10 76. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2011 until on or around January 7, 2019,
11 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Becerra property.
12 77. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2015 until on or around January 7, 2019,
13 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Broadmore property.
14 78. Plaintiff alleges that since 2013, Defendant Ng has transferred assets, including cash
15 and other property to avoid paying creditors, including former Mango Restaurant employees and
16 Plaintiff for unpaid wages and other accrued Labor Code violations.
17 79. Plaintiff alleges that these improper transfers by Defendant Ng include the transfer of
18 his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore properties to Defendant Jing Wu on or about
19 January 7, 2019 for nominal value.
20 80. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges from at least 2013 to the present,
21 Defendant Ng transferred substantial amounts of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and DOES 1-25,
22 including cash assets.
23 81. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the transfers of these assets occurred
24 through the actions of the individual defendants named in this matter, Hak Ng, Jing Wu, and DOES
25 1-25. Defendant Ng transferred assets to Defendant Jing Wu and Defendants 1-25 each for their
26 benefit at the expense of Defendant Ng’s creditors, including creditor Plaintiff and the former
27 Mango Restaurant workers.
28
DEPARTMENT
OF 14
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 82. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that such fraudulent transfers took place
2 on or after the liabilities for the claims for the Unpaid Wages Judgments occurred in 2013 and have
3 continued to occur until the present.
4 83. The alleged fraudulent transfers have left Defendant Ng insolvent, unable to pay his
5 debt to Plaintiff or any other creditor as well as to prevent the enforcement of the Unpaid Wages
6 Judgments.
7 84. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng made the transfer or transfers of assets (including the
8 transfers for the Becerra and Broadmore property) with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud his
9 creditors, including creditor Plaintiff.
10 85. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng’s decision to transfer his ownership interest for
11 nominal value in the Becerra and Broadmore properties after the administrative Final Order
12 determining liability for over $2.1 million was issued, but before the Unpaid Wages Judgments were
13 issued shows his intent to intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors, including creditor Plaintiff.
14 86. Further Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng demonstrates an intent to hinder, delay or
15 defraud his creditors by continuing to ignore the Unpaid Wages Judgments and failing to make any
16 voluntary payments since they were issued.
17 87. That Labor Commissioner alleges it has a right to payment from Defendant for the
18 various Labor Code violation liabilities as established by the Unpaid Wages Judgments for not less
19 than $1,138,215.61 as of August 2018. August 2018 is when the Final Order for the Mango
20 Restaurant Citations was issued.
21 88. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendant Ng’s transfers of assets to the other
22 Defendants left him unable to pay Plaintiff for the Labor Code violations, including the unpaid
23 wages of its former employees.
24 89. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged, Plaintiff has been generally
25 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of not less than the remaining amounts owed on the
26 Unpaid Wages Judgments. This is amount is at least $1,138,215.61.
27 90. On information and belief, and thereupon that basis, Plaintiff alleges each Defendant
28 included in this cause of action knowingly participated in, facilitated and conspired to accomplish
DEPARTMENT
OF 15
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT –
LEGAL UNIT
COMPLAINT
LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al.
1 the alleged improper fraudulent asset transfers.
2 91. Each Defendant, including the named individuals, knowingly participate in,
3 facilitated, and conspired to accomplish the fraudulent transfers. These activities include transferring
4
Preview
1 NO FEE PER LABOR CODE §§ 101, 101.5 & 2 GOV’T CODE §6103 3 Matthew Sirolly SBN 239984 Melvin Yee, SBN 241589 4 Labor Commissioner, Chief, Division of Labor 5 Standards Enforcement, State of California 320 W. 4th Street, Suite 600 6 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone No. (213) 897-1511 7 Facsimile No. (213) 897-2877 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, LABOR COMMISSIONER, CHIEF, DLSE, STATE 10 OF CALIFORNIA 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF LOS ALAMEDA - UNLIMITED 13 LABOR COMMISSIONER, CHIEF, Case No. 14 DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, STATE OF COMPLAINT FOR: 15 CALIFORNIA 1. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT 16 Plaintiff, TRANSFER--INSOLVENCY v. 2. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT 17 TRANSFER –FAILURE TO PAY HAK CHUN NG aka DOMINIK NG, an 18 individual; JING WU, an individual; and REASONABLE EQUIVALENT VALUE DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 3. INTENTIONAL FRAUDULENT 19 TRANSFER 20 Defendants. VERIFIED ANSWER REQUIRED 21 PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 446 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 -DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 1 DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT- LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff, LABOR COMMISSIONER, CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF LABOR 3 STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter “Labor 4 Commissioner” or “Plaintiff”), alleges as follows: 5 INTRODUCTION 6 1. Defendant Hak Ng owned and operated multiple Chinese food restaurants in California 7 located in the cities of Fremont, San Jose, and San Matro. After an investigation by Plaintiff in 2015, 8 she issued citations against Defendant Hak Ng and other entities associated with operating these 9 restaurants for numerous California Labor Code violations. The liabilities for these citations totaled 10 over $1.8 million dollars and included a failure to pay minimum wage to the restaurants’ employees. 11 Defendant Hak Ng and his citations co-defendants appealed the citations. 12 2. The administrative hearing officer affirmed the citations in August 2018 resulting in a total 13 liability of over $2.1 million dollars. Defendant Hak Ng and his citation co-defendants did not pay 14 the amounts found due to their extensive Labor Code violations. Resultantly, the citations were 15 entered with the appropriate California Superior court and twelve (2) judgments were issued against 16 Defendant Hak Ng and his citation co-defendants. These judgments were issued in November 2019, 17 March 2019, and July 2019. 18 3. Continued investigations by the Labor Commissioner, as well as publicly available records, 19 indicate Defendant Hak Ng’s appears to have transferred assets, including real property outside the 20 legal reach of the Unpaid Wages Judgments. Plaintiff further alleges these improper transfers 21 resulted in Defendant Hak Ng’s assets ultimately being owned in name of Defendant Jing Wu and/or 22 DOES 1-25. 23 4. The result, and alleged primary purpose, of these improper transfers appears to be evading 24 paying creditors, including the Unpaid Wages Judgments liabilities sought by Plaintiff California 25 Labor Commissioner. This lawsuit seeks to address improper transfers (including real property 26 transfers) for recovery of the unpaid wages and other debts owed arising from the Unpaid Wages 27 Judgments. 28 DEPARTMENT OF 2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 5. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted in this complaint 3 pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution, because statutes do not provide 4 these claims be adjudicated by any other trial court. Court jurisdiction over Defendants named herein 5 is proper because the conduct and transactions on which this complaint is based on, or occurred in, 6 the State of California and the assets fraudulently transferred or subject to the causes of action in this 7 Complaint are located in the State of California. 8 6. Venue is proper in this Court because the Defendants in this action operate and/or 9 reside in Alameda County. Additionally, the alleged improper transfers of assets appear to have 10 occurred in Alameda County. The two allegedly improperly transferred properties are located in 11 Alameda County. 12 PARTIES 13 7. PLAINTIFF LABOR COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 (herein after “Plaintiff” or “Labor Commissioner”). The Labor Commissioner is the head of the 15 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is under the California Department of Industrial 16 Relations. The Labor Commissioner is the California state agency that has the primary responsibility 17 of enforcing all provisions of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission orders 18 governing wages, hours and working conditions of California employees not specifically delegated 19 to another agency or division. (Labor Code §§61 and 95(a)). Labor Code section 1193.5 specifically 20 grants the Plaintiff the authority to “[i]nvestigate and ascertain the wages of all employees, and the 21 hours and working conditions of all employees employed in any occupation in the state.” The Labor 22 Commissioner's mission has the twin objectives of ensuring compliance with minimum labor 23 standards to protect workers from substandard conditions and of providing a level playing field for 24 employers that comply with California labor laws. 25 8. DEFENDANT HAK CHUN NG aka DOMINIK NG is a natural person. At all 26 times herein relevant he was over the age of eighteen (18). Plaintiff is informed and believes and on 27 that basis alleges that at all times relevant to this Complaint he resided or conducted business in 28 Alameda County, California. DEPARTMENT OF 3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 9. DEFENDANT JING WU is a natural person. At all times herein relevant she was 2 over the age of eighteen (18). Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all 3 times relevant to this Complaint he resided or conducted business in Alameda County, California. 4 Public records indicate, and on information and belief, she is or was married to Defendant Hak Ng 5 during the relevant times of this Complaint. 6 10. DOE DEFENDANTS. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein 7 as DOES 1 through 25 are unknown to Plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff sues these Defendants by 8 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities 9 when ascertained. 10 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes that certain DOE Defendants aided and abetted the 11 wrongful acts of the others. Furthermore, Plaintiff is informed and believes, as applicable, that 12 certain DOE Defendants conspired to commit the wrongful acts forming the basis of this action. 13 12. As applicable, whenever and wherever this Complaint refers to any act by a 14 Defendant or Defendants (unless otherwise specified) such allegations and references shall also be 15 deemed to mean the acts and failure to act of each Defendant as applicable acting individually, 16 jointly, and/or severally. 17 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all times material to this complaint, certain 18 Defendants were the agent and/or joint employer of, or working in concert with, other certain Co- 19 Defendants and were acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or joint venture or 20 concerted activity. To the extent that this conduct or these omissions were perpetuated by certain 21 Defendants, the remaining Defendant, or Defendants as applicable, confirmed or ratified the conduct 22 or omissions. Plaintiff is informed and believes (as applicable), and on that basis alleges, certain 23 Defendants acted as alter egos of one another and/or a single enterprise at various times material to 24 the allegations of this complaint. 25 14. Whenever and wherever reference is made to individuals who are not named as 26 Defendants in this Complaint, but are, or were employees/agents, of other Defendants, or any of 27 them, such individuals at all relevant times acted on behalf of other Defendants within the scope of 28 their employment or agency. DEPARTMENT OF 4 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 2 A. California Labor Commissioner Citations Issued Against Defendant Hak Ng and 3 Various Restaurant Businesses He Owned (or Operated) for Failing to Pay Minimum Wages 4 and Other Labor Code Violations 5 15. In 2015, Plaintiff, began investigating Defendant Hak Ng (“Defendant Ng”) and 6 several restaurants he owned or operated to determine if they were complying with the California 7 Labor Code. 8 16. Public records show these restaurants were incorporated or associated with at least 9 five California corporations (hereinafter referred to as “Mango Restaurants”).1 The Mango 10 Restaurants served Chinese cuisine and were located in the cities of Fremont, San Jose, and San 11 Mateo. 12 17. Defendant Ng and the Mango Restaurants were also investigated by the Alameda 13 County District Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Insurance, the State of California 14 Employment Development Department, and the United States Department of Labor for state and 15 federal law violations. 16 18. After an extensive investigation, including worker interviews and obtaining Mango 17 Restaurant employment records, the Labor Commissioner issued twelve (12) citations against 18 Defendant Ng, the Mango Restaurants, and another owner (or operator) Hai Jie Chen (collectively 19 referred to as the “Mango Restaurant Defendants”) in March and June 2017. These twelve citations 20 will be referred to as the “Mango Restaurant Citations.” The Mango Restaurant Citations addresses 21 California Labor Code violations that occurred up to three (3) years prior to date of their issuance in 22 2017. 23 19. The Mango Restaurant Citations assessed over $1.8 million in liability against the 24 Mango Restaurant Defendants arising from various California Labor Code violations. 25 26 1 27 The names of those companies are: i) Mango Jungle, a California corporation (terminated); ii) Mango Garden, Inc., a California Corporation (terminated); iii) Mango Blaze Inc., a California 28 corporation (terminated); iv) Golden State San Jose Inc., a California corporation (terminated); and Golden State San Mateo, a California corporation (terminated). DEPARTMENT OF 5 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 20. The investigation found Mango Restaurant employees worked 10 or more hours a 2 day while being paid less than the minimum wage and did not receive required meal and rest breaks, 3 overtime pay or split shift premiums. The investigation also found the Mango Restaurant Defendants 4 had paid its workers in cash and kept fifteen (15) percent for themselves, telling the workers the 5 deductions were collected to pay taxes. 6 B. Judgments Totaling over Two Million Dollars Issued Against Mango Restaurant 7 Defendants After Labor Commissioner Citations Affirmed 8 21. The Mango Restaurant Defendants, including Defendant Ng, appealed the Mango 9 Restaurant Citations. 10 22. Hearings for the Mango Restaurant Citations occurred in September 2017 as well as 11 in January and February of 2018. The hearings lasted over nine (9) days. 12 23. The Notice of Findings and Final Order for the Mango Restaurant Citations appeal 13 hearings was issued on August 15, 2018. It affirmed the Mango Restaurant Citations and included 14 assessing prejudgment interest against the Mango Restaurant Defendants. Total liability against the 15 Mango Restaurant Defendants exceeded $2.1 million dollars. 16 24. The Mango Restaurant Defendants failed to pay amounts necessary to satisfy the $2.1 17 million liability determination. Resultantly, twelve (12) judgments were issued by the superior courts 18 (with the appropriate jurisdiction) against the Mango Restaurant Defendants (“Unpaid Wages 19 Judgments”). Below is a table identifying the court case number, date the judgment was issued, and 20 the county issuing the judgment. 21 No. Court Number Superior Court 22 Issuing Judgment 23 1 HG18929944 Alameda 2 HG18930001 Alameda 24 3 HG18930016 Alameda 4 18CV337689 Santa Clara 25 5 18CV337691 Santa Clara 26 6 18CV337693 Santa Clara 7 19CV345704 Santa Clara 27 8 19CV352587 Santa Clara 9 18CIV06041 San Mateo 28 10 18CIV06046 San Mateo DEPARTMENT OF 6 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 11 18CLJ06054 San Mateo 12 18CIV06055 San Mateo 2 3 C. Defendant Hak Ng Transfers Real Property to Defendant Jing Wu Before 4 Issuance of the Unpaid Wages Judgments, But After the Adminisrative Final Order 5 Determining the $2.1 Million Liability 6 25. Public records at the Alameda County recorder’s office show that Defendant Ng 7 purchased the property located at 4193 Becerra Drive in Fremont, California (hereinafter “Becerra 8 Property”) in October 2015. 9 26. These public records show Defendant Ng owned the Becerra property until around 10 January 2019. 11 27. After Defendant Ng lost his appeal for the Mango Restaurant Citations, public 12 records show he transferred the Becerra property to Defendant Jing Wu for a nominal amount on or 13 about January 7, 2019. 14 28. Public records indicate the current owner of the Becerra property is Defendant Jing 15 Wu. 16 29. Public records at the Alameda County recorder’s office show that Defendant Ng 17 purchased the property located at 24645 Broadmore Avenue in Hayward, California (hereinafter 18 “Broadmore Property”) in November 2011. 19 30. These public records show Defendant Ng owned the Broadmore property until around 20 January 2019. 21 31. After Defendant Ng lost his appeal for the Mango Restaurant Citations, public record 22 show he transferred the Broadmore property to Defendant Jing Wu for a nominal amount on or about 23 January 7, 2019. 24 32. Public records indicate the current owner of the Broadmore property is Defendant 25 Wu. 26 27 28 DEPARTMENT OF 7 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 D. The Unpaid Wages Judgments Against Mango Restaurant Defendants, including 2 Defendant Ng Remain Unsatisfied 3 33. Since the Unpaid Wages Judgments were issued in November 2018, March 2019, and 4 July 2019, the Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) have failed to voluntarily 5 satisfy them. As of December 2023, the outstanding balance (including accrued interest) is 6 approximately $1,370,707.24. This accounting includes a credit of $1,138,215.61 that was collected 7 by the Alameda County District Attorneys Office and remitted to Plaintiff to be disbursed to the 8 victims of the Mango Restaurants Defendants’ wage theft in 2019. 9 34. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the California courts issued a series of Emergency 10 Rules. Specifically, Rule 9 tolled the statutes of limitations for civil causes of actions. Emergency 11 Rule 9 (a) states in relevant part, “the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of actions 12 that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020.” 13 14 REQUIREMENT THAT ANY ANSWER FILED BY A DEFENDANT IN THIS 15 MATTER BE VERIFIED 16 35. California Code of Civil Procedure § 446 requires that answers filed in this civil matter be 17 verified. Section 446 states in relevant part, “Every pleading shall be subscribed by the party or his 18 or her attorney. When the state...or any officer of the state, or…public agency...is plaintiff, the 19 answer shall be verified,” 20 21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 22 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER – INSOLVENCY 23 (California Civil Code § 3439.05) 24 (Plaintiff against all Defendants) 25 31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the 26 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth herein. 27 32. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all Defendants. 28 33. Plaintiff alleges that from around 2013 until the Mango Restaurants ceased to operate DEPARTMENT OF 8 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 on or about 2016, its former employees accrued a right to payment against the Mango Restaurant 2 Defendants (including Defendant Ng) for their unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations 3 occurring at that time. 4 34. Further, Plaintiff’s right to payment for the Mango Restaurant Citations against 5 Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) accrued and was liquidated when the 6 citations were issued in 2017 and reaffirmed when the Final Order from the Mango Restaurant 7 Citations appeal was issued in 2018. 8 35. Plaintiff alleges that from 2013 until the present, Defendant Ng has been working and 9 generating substantial income to pay for his expenses as well as his family’s expenses. This work 10 included receiving monies from owning and operating the Mango Restaurants until they appeared to 11 cease to operate in 2016. 12 36. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2011 until on or around January 7, 2019, 13 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Becerra property. 14 37. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2015 until on or around January 7, 2019, 15 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Broadmore property. 16 38. Plaintiff alleges that since 2013, Defendant Ng has transferred assets, including cash 17 and other property to avoid paying creditors, including former Mango Restaurant employees and 18 Plaintiff for unpaid wages and other liabilities arising from his Labor Code violations. 19 39. Plaintiff alleges that these improper transfers by Defendant Ng include the transfer of 20 his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore properties to Defendant Jing Wu on or about 21 January 7, 2019 for nominal value. 22 40. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges from at least 2013 to the present, 23 Defendant Ng transferred substantial amounts of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and DOES 1-25, 24 including cash assets. 25 41. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the transfers of these assets occurred 26 through Defendants’ actions including Defendant Ng transfer of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and 27 Defendants 1-25 each for their benefit at the expense of Defendant Ng’s creditors, including creditor 28 Plaintiff and the former Mango Restaurant workers. DEPARTMENT OF 9 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 42. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that such fraudulent transfers took place 2 on or after the liabilities for the claims for the Unpaid Wages Judgments occurred in 2013 and have 3 continued to occur until the present. 4 43. Plaintiff alleges that the transfer or transfers of his assets (including the transfer of 5 ownership in the Becerra and Broadmore property) left Defendant Ng to become insolvent, or 6 remain insolvent, and unable to pay his debt to creditors, including Plaintiff and/or the former 7 employees at the time the debts were incurred to the present. 8 44. That Labor Commissioner alleges it has a right to payment from Defendant for the 9 various Labor Code violation liabilities as established by the Unpaid Wages Judgments for not less 10 than $1,138,215.61 as of August 2018. August 2018 is when the Final Order for the Mango 11 Restaurant Citations was issued. 12 45. Plaintiff is harmed because Defendant Ng’s alleged fraudulent transfer of assets to the 13 other Defendants left him unable to pay Plaintiff for the Labor Code violations, including the unpaid 14 wages of his former employees. 15 46. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged, Plaintiff has been generally 16 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of not less than the remaining amounts owed on the 17 Unpaid Wages Judgments. This is amount is at least $1,138,215.61. 18 47. On information and belief, and thereupon that basis, Plaintiff alleges each Defendant 19 included in this cause of action knowingly participated in, facilitated and conspired to accomplish 20 the alleged improper fraudulent asset transfers. 21 48. Each Defendant, including the named individuals, knowingly participate in, 22 facilitated, and conspired to accomplish the fraudulent transfers. These activities include transferring 23 or receiving assets including monies or real property ownership from Defendant Ng to other 24 Defendants. 25 49. Moreover, upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng had the ability 26 to pay amounts due to their employees between the time unpaid wages were earned and owed in 27 2013 until the present. Instead, Defendant Ng willfully failed to pay the wages owed, thus, Plaintiff 28 is entitled to additional treble damages under Labor Code § 206. DEPARTMENT OF 10 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER-- FAILURE TO PAY REASONABLE 3 EQUIVALENT VALUE 4 (California Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(2)(A)) 5 (Plaintiff against all Defendants) 6 50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the 7 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth herein. 8 51. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all Defendants. 9 52. Plaintiff alleges that from around 2013 until the Mango Restaurants ceased to operate 10 on or about 2016, its former employees accrued a right to payment against the Mango Restaurant 11 Defendants (including Defendant Ng) for their unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations 12 occurring at that time. 13 53. Further, Plaintiff’s right to payment for the Mango Restaurant Citations against 14 Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) accrued and was liquidated when the 15 citations were issued in 2017 and reaffirmed when the Final Order from the Mango Restaurant 16 Citations appeal was issued in 2018. 17 54. Plaintiff alleges that from 2013 until the present, Defendant Ng has been working and 18 generating substantial income to pay for his expenses as well as his family’s expenses. This work 19 included receiving monies from owning and operating the Mango Restaurants until they appeared to 20 cease to operate in 2016. 21 55. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2011 until on or around January 7, 2019, 22 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Becerra property. 23 56. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2015 until on or around January 7, 2019, 24 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Broadmore property. 25 57. Plaintiff alleges that since 2013, Defendant Ng has transferred assets, including cash 26 and other property to avoid paying creditors, including former Mango Restaurant employees and 27 Plaintiff for unpaid wages and other liabilities arising from his Labor Code violations. 28 58. Plaintiff alleges that these improper transfers by Defendant Ng include the transfer of DEPARTMENT OF 11 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore properties to Defendant Jing Wu on or about 2 January 7, 2019 for nominal value. 3 59. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges from at least 2013 to the present, 4 Defendant Ng transferred substantial amounts of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and DOES 1-25, 5 including cash assets. 6 60. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the transfers of these assets occurred 7 through Defendants’ actions including Defendant Ng transfer of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and 8 Defendants 1-25 each for their benefit at the expense of Defendant Ng’s creditors, including creditor 9 Plaintiff and the former Mango Restaurant workers. 10 61. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that such fraudulent transfers took place 11 on or after the liabilities for the claims for the Unpaid Wages Judgments occurred in 2013 and have 12 continued to occur until the present. 13 62. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the alleged fraudulent transfer or 14 transfers were made from, Defendant Ng to other Defendants for no value, or less than reasonably 15 equivalent value. 16 63. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges at the time of the transfer or transfers, 17 Defendant Ng was engaged or was about to engage in business or transactions for which the 18 remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transactions. 19 64. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng intended that he incur, or believed, or reasonably 20 should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. 21 Specifically, Defnedant Ng’s transfer of his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore 22 property for nominal value left him unable to pay his creditors including Plaintiff. 23 65. That Labor Commissioner alleges it has a right to payment from Defendant for the 24 various Labor Code violation liabilities as established by the Unpaid Wages Judgments for not less 25 than $1,138,215.61 as of August 2018. August 2018 is when the Final Order for the Mango 26 Restaurant Citations was issued. 27 28 DEPARTMENT OF 12 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 66. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendant Ng’s transfers of assets to the other 2 Defendants left him unable to pay Plaintiff for the Labor Code violations, including the unpaid 3 wages of its former employees. 4 67. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged, Plaintiff has been generally 5 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of not less than the remaining amounts owed on the 6 Unpaid Wages Judgments. This is amount is at least $1,138,215.61. 7 68. On information and belief, and thereupon that basis, Plaintiff alleges each Defendant 8 included in this cause of action knowingly participated in, facilitated and conspired to accomplish 9 the alleged improper fraudulent asset transfers. 10 69. Each Defendant, including the named individuals, knowingly participate in, 11 facilitated, and conspired to accomplish the fraudulent transfers. These activities include transferring 12 or receiving assets including monies or real property ownership from Defendant Ng to other 13 Defendants. 14 70. Moreover, upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng had the ability 15 to pay amounts due to their employees between the time unpaid wages were earned and owed in 16 2013 until the present. Instead, Defendant Ng willfully failed to pay the wages owed, thus, Plaintiff 17 is entitled to additional treble damages under Labor Code § 206. 18 19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 20 INTENTIONAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER 21 (California Civil Code § 3439.04 and California Common Law) 22 (Plaintiff against all Defendants) 23 71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the 24 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth herein. 25 72. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all defendants. 26 73. Plaintiff alleges that from around 2013 until the Mango Restaurants ceased to operate 27 on or about 2016, its former employees accrued a right to payment against the Mango Restaurant 28 Defendants (including Defendant Ng) for their unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations DEPARTMENT OF 13 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 occurring at that time. 2 74. Further, Plaintiff’s right to payment for the Mango Restaurant Citations against 3 Mango Restaurant Defendants (including Defendant Ng) accrued and was liquidated when the 4 citations were issued in 2017 and reaffirmed when the Final Order from the Mango Restaurant 5 Citations appeal was issued in 2018. 6 75. Plaintiff alleges that from 2013 until the present, Defendant Ng has been working and 7 generating substantial income to pay for his expenses as well as his family’s expenses. This work 8 included receiving monies from owning and operating the Mango Restaurants until they appeared to 9 cease to operate in 2016. 10 76. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2011 until on or around January 7, 2019, 11 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Becerra property. 12 77. Plaintiff alleges from on or around 2015 until on or around January 7, 2019, 13 Defendant Ng held an ownership interest with equity in the Broadmore property. 14 78. Plaintiff alleges that since 2013, Defendant Ng has transferred assets, including cash 15 and other property to avoid paying creditors, including former Mango Restaurant employees and 16 Plaintiff for unpaid wages and other accrued Labor Code violations. 17 79. Plaintiff alleges that these improper transfers by Defendant Ng include the transfer of 18 his ownership interest in the Becerra and Broadmore properties to Defendant Jing Wu on or about 19 January 7, 2019 for nominal value. 20 80. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges from at least 2013 to the present, 21 Defendant Ng transferred substantial amounts of assets to Defendant Jing Wu and DOES 1-25, 22 including cash assets. 23 81. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the transfers of these assets occurred 24 through the actions of the individual defendants named in this matter, Hak Ng, Jing Wu, and DOES 25 1-25. Defendant Ng transferred assets to Defendant Jing Wu and Defendants 1-25 each for their 26 benefit at the expense of Defendant Ng’s creditors, including creditor Plaintiff and the former 27 Mango Restaurant workers. 28 DEPARTMENT OF 14 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 82. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that such fraudulent transfers took place 2 on or after the liabilities for the claims for the Unpaid Wages Judgments occurred in 2013 and have 3 continued to occur until the present. 4 83. The alleged fraudulent transfers have left Defendant Ng insolvent, unable to pay his 5 debt to Plaintiff or any other creditor as well as to prevent the enforcement of the Unpaid Wages 6 Judgments. 7 84. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng made the transfer or transfers of assets (including the 8 transfers for the Becerra and Broadmore property) with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud his 9 creditors, including creditor Plaintiff. 10 85. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng’s decision to transfer his ownership interest for 11 nominal value in the Becerra and Broadmore properties after the administrative Final Order 12 determining liability for over $2.1 million was issued, but before the Unpaid Wages Judgments were 13 issued shows his intent to intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors, including creditor Plaintiff. 14 86. Further Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ng demonstrates an intent to hinder, delay or 15 defraud his creditors by continuing to ignore the Unpaid Wages Judgments and failing to make any 16 voluntary payments since they were issued. 17 87. That Labor Commissioner alleges it has a right to payment from Defendant for the 18 various Labor Code violation liabilities as established by the Unpaid Wages Judgments for not less 19 than $1,138,215.61 as of August 2018. August 2018 is when the Final Order for the Mango 20 Restaurant Citations was issued. 21 88. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendant Ng’s transfers of assets to the other 22 Defendants left him unable to pay Plaintiff for the Labor Code violations, including the unpaid 23 wages of its former employees. 24 89. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged, Plaintiff has been generally 25 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of not less than the remaining amounts owed on the 26 Unpaid Wages Judgments. This is amount is at least $1,138,215.61. 27 90. On information and belief, and thereupon that basis, Plaintiff alleges each Defendant 28 included in this cause of action knowingly participated in, facilitated and conspired to accomplish DEPARTMENT OF 15 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL UNIT COMPLAINT LABOR COMMISSIONER v. HAK CHUN NG et al. 1 the alleged improper fraudulent asset transfers. 2 91. Each Defendant, including the named individuals, knowingly participate in, 3 facilitated, and conspired to accomplish the fraudulent transfers. These activities include transferring 4