Preview
FILED
4/19/2021 5:57 PM
3 ClTS-ESERVE FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS 00., TEXAS
Christi Undewvood DEPUTY
DC-21-04907
CAUSE NO.
PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§§§§§§§§§§§§
BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
Plaintififv,
V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, IN C.,
GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO, 101st
INDIVIDUALLY
Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION
COME NOW Plaintiffs BNG Management Group, LLC and PK Restaurant Group, LLC
(hereinafter “P1aintiffs”) and file this their Original Petition against Defendants Tozee
Construction, Inc., Giant Blue, Inc., and Jimmy Cho, individually, and allege as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY PLAN
1. Discovery in this case will be conducted under a Level Two Discovery Control
Plan pursuant to Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff BNG Management Group, LLC (“BNG”) is a Georgia Limited Liability
company with its principal place of business at 4355 International B1vd., Suite 100, Norcross,
Georgia 30093.
3. Plaintiff PK Restaurant Group, Inc. (“PK”) is a Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business at 4355 International Blvd., Suite 100, Norcross, Georgia 30093.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1 of 7
4. Defendant Tozee Construction, Inc. is a Texas corporation that can be served with
proces through its registered agent Tae Cho at 11362 Kline Drive, Dallas, Texas 75229.
5. Defendant Giant Blue, Inc. is a Texas Corporation that can be served with process
through its registered agent J immy TL Cho at 2148 Royal Lane, Suite 160, Dallas, Texas 75229.
6. Defendant Jimmy Cho is a Texas resident that can be served with process at 2148
Royal Lane, Suite 160, Dallas, Texas 75229 or Wherever he may be found.
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Venue in Dallas County, Texas is proper because it is the county in which at least
one Defendant resides. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 15.002(a)(2). It’s also proper because it’s
the County in which multiple Defendants have their principal place of business. Tex. Civ. Prac.
Rem. Code § 15.002(a)(3). It’s also proper because it’s the County in which all or a substantial
portion of the events giving rise to this suit occurred. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 15.002(a)(1).
8. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this
Court.
IV.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiff states that it is currently
seeking monetary relief of over $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000.00.
V.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. Plaintiffs are a restaurant group of a franchisor that franchises chicken Wing
restaurants based in Georgia but operating in Texas.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2 of 7
1 1. As part of their expansion, Plaintiffs decided to open three (3) locations in the grater
Dallas — Fort Worth area metroplex. Plaintiff PK leased the three locations. Plaintiff BNG was
designated with authority to perform the necessary construction work on the locations.
12. Plaintiffs were introduced to Jimmy Cho, who owns construction companies Tozee
Construction, Inc. and Giant Blue, Inc. Cho claimed he had decades of experience, referred to
many projects he claimed to have completed, stated his was the number one construction company
within the Dallas — Forth Worth Korean community, and that he was ready to perform work of the
highest quality to make the expansion into Texas a quick success.
13. Based upon his representations, Plaintiff BNG retained Cho through his entities to
perform the work at three (3) locations; one in Irving, one in Carrollton, and one in Dallas, Texas.
To date, Plaintiff BNG has paid Cho over $390,000.00 for construction at the three (3) locations.
14. Cho completed about 70% of the Dallas, Irving, and Carrollton locations, and then
stopped work, demanding to be paid the entirety of the contract price before he would “finish”
each job.
15. Plaintiff BNG refused to modify the pay schedule of each job, and insisted that Cho
finish the work before the final payments would be made as agreed.
16. Cho then refused to return to any of the restaurants and retained a lawyer to send
letters threatening liens would be filed on the Irving and Dallas properties if the payment
agreement was not modified. In each letter, Cho claims he is owed $40,000.00 on each of the two
jobs.
17. Cho also stopped paying his subcontractors and lied to them, claiming Plaintiff
BNG was refusing to comply with the contract, who then began harassing Plaintiff for payment
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3 of 7
and threatening liens of their own unless payment was made to them. Plaintiff was subsequently
forced to pay one such subcontractor to prevent a lien from being filed.
18. As a further attempt to damage Plaintiffs’ business, Cho sent copies of these letters
to the landlords at each restaurant space in an attempt to get the Landlords to declare Plaintiff PK
in default of the leases or cause termination of the leases Plaintiff PK had at each location.
19. Because of Cho’s refusal to finish the work, Plaintiff BNG was forced to retain
another construction company to finish the jobs at each location. During the construction, it came
to the attention of the new construction company that Cho had done many of the items improperly,
and they needed to be re-done and replaced.
20. Plaintiff BNG was forced to spent approximately $170,000.00 finishing out the
leaseholds, including repairing and replacing the defective work performed by Cho.
21. Once Plaintiff BNG finished the work and the restaurants were open for business,
Cho, in the middle of the night, went to two of the locations and physically stole the marquee signs
off the front of the building. Demand has been made for him to return them. He has refused,
claiming that he won’t return them until he is paid.
22. As a result, Plaintiff PK has been forced to purchase new signs so as to not default
on its lease agreements with the landlords.
VI.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
23. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants have occurred,
been performed, satisfied, or otherwise fulfilled.
VII.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I — BREACH 0F CONTRACT
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4 of 7
24. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein.
25 . Plaintiffs and Defendants had a legally enforceable contract supported by offer,
acceptance, a meeting of the minds, and consideration.
26. The Plaintiffs performed all obligations.
27. Defendants breached the contract.
28. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
COUNT II — CIVIL THEFT (TEXAS THEFT LIABILITY ACT)
29. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein.
30. Defendant committed theft when they stole Plaintiffs’ marquee signs.
31. According to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 134.003, a person who commits
thefl is liable for the damages resulting from the theft.
32. Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount necessary to buy new signs.
33. Plaintiffs also requests statutory damages of $1,000.00 per sign in accordance with
134.005 (a)(1) as well as reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees in accordance with
13.005(b).
COUNT III — FRAUD
34. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein.
35. Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs to induce them into the contract.
36. The representations made by Defendants were material.
37 . The representations were false.
38. At the time the Defendants made the representations they knew they were false or made
them recklessly without the knowledge of their truth.
39. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 5 of 7
40. Plaintiffs were damaged by the misrepresentations.
COUNT IV — CONVERSION
41. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein.
42. Plaintiffs had a right to possession of the signs.
43. Defendants took the signs.
44. Plaintiffs demanded Defendants return the signs.
45. Defendants failed to return the signs.
COUNT V — MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
46. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein.
47. Defendants hold money Plaintiffs paid them before finishing the work.
48. The money in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiffs because the work was not
completed.
COUNT VI — INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
49. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein.
50. Plaintiffs had an existing business relationship subject to interference.
51. Defendants acted intentionally and willfully with the intent to interfere in that
relationship.
52. The act by Defendants was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.
53. Plaintiffs were damaged.
VIII.
ATTORNEY’S FEES
54. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 6 of 7
55. Because of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been forced to retain counsel to
prosecute this suit. Plaintiffs seek recovery of their reasonably and necessary attorney’s
fees under Chapter 38 of the Texas Practice and Remedies Code.
IX.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Court enter:
l. A judgment in favor Plaintiffs against Defendants all other actual or economic damages
suffered by Plaintiffs;
An order awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses;
Pre and post-judgement interest at the highest applicable rates allowable by law;
Exemplary damages for fraudulent conduct;
Statutory damages; and
Any and all other relief in law and equity to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be
justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM
/s/ Jordan Whiddon
TAILIM SONG
State Bar No. 00792845
tsong@tailimsong.com
JORDAN WHIDDON
State Bar No. 24093350
jwhiddon@tailimsong.com
8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480
Dallas, Texas 75251
(214) 528-8400 Telephone
(214) 528-8402 Facsimile
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 7 of 7
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Tailim Song on behalf of Tailim Song
Bar No. 00792845
tsong@tailimsong.com
Envelope ID: 52612831
Status as of 4/22/2021 8:48 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 4/19/2021 5:57:36 PM SENT
Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 4/19/2021 5:57:36 PM SENT
Jordan Whiddon jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 4/19/2021 5:57:36 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 4/19/2021 5:57 PM 3 ClTS-ESERVE FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS Christi Undewvood DEPUTY DC-21-04907 CAUSE NO. PK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF §§§§§§§§§§§§ BNG MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC Plaintififv, V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS TOZEE CONSTRUCTION, IN C., GIANT BLUE, INC., AND JIMMY CHO, 101st INDIVIDUALLY Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION COME NOW Plaintiffs BNG Management Group, LLC and PK Restaurant Group, LLC (hereinafter “P1aintiffs”) and file this their Original Petition against Defendants Tozee Construction, Inc., Giant Blue, Inc., and Jimmy Cho, individually, and allege as follows: I. DISCOVERY PLAN 1. Discovery in this case will be conducted under a Level Two Discovery Control Plan pursuant to Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. II. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff BNG Management Group, LLC (“BNG”) is a Georgia Limited Liability company with its principal place of business at 4355 International B1vd., Suite 100, Norcross, Georgia 30093. 3. Plaintiff PK Restaurant Group, Inc. (“PK”) is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business at 4355 International Blvd., Suite 100, Norcross, Georgia 30093. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1 of 7 4. Defendant Tozee Construction, Inc. is a Texas corporation that can be served with proces through its registered agent Tae Cho at 11362 Kline Drive, Dallas, Texas 75229. 5. Defendant Giant Blue, Inc. is a Texas Corporation that can be served with process through its registered agent J immy TL Cho at 2148 Royal Lane, Suite 160, Dallas, Texas 75229. 6. Defendant Jimmy Cho is a Texas resident that can be served with process at 2148 Royal Lane, Suite 160, Dallas, Texas 75229 or Wherever he may be found. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Venue in Dallas County, Texas is proper because it is the county in which at least one Defendant resides. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 15.002(a)(2). It’s also proper because it’s the County in which multiple Defendants have their principal place of business. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 15.002(a)(3). It’s also proper because it’s the County in which all or a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this suit occurred. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 15.002(a)(1). 8. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 9. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiff states that it is currently seeking monetary relief of over $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000.00. V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. Plaintiffs are a restaurant group of a franchisor that franchises chicken Wing restaurants based in Georgia but operating in Texas. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2 of 7 1 1. As part of their expansion, Plaintiffs decided to open three (3) locations in the grater Dallas — Fort Worth area metroplex. Plaintiff PK leased the three locations. Plaintiff BNG was designated with authority to perform the necessary construction work on the locations. 12. Plaintiffs were introduced to Jimmy Cho, who owns construction companies Tozee Construction, Inc. and Giant Blue, Inc. Cho claimed he had decades of experience, referred to many projects he claimed to have completed, stated his was the number one construction company within the Dallas — Forth Worth Korean community, and that he was ready to perform work of the highest quality to make the expansion into Texas a quick success. 13. Based upon his representations, Plaintiff BNG retained Cho through his entities to perform the work at three (3) locations; one in Irving, one in Carrollton, and one in Dallas, Texas. To date, Plaintiff BNG has paid Cho over $390,000.00 for construction at the three (3) locations. 14. Cho completed about 70% of the Dallas, Irving, and Carrollton locations, and then stopped work, demanding to be paid the entirety of the contract price before he would “finish” each job. 15. Plaintiff BNG refused to modify the pay schedule of each job, and insisted that Cho finish the work before the final payments would be made as agreed. 16. Cho then refused to return to any of the restaurants and retained a lawyer to send letters threatening liens would be filed on the Irving and Dallas properties if the payment agreement was not modified. In each letter, Cho claims he is owed $40,000.00 on each of the two jobs. 17. Cho also stopped paying his subcontractors and lied to them, claiming Plaintiff BNG was refusing to comply with the contract, who then began harassing Plaintiff for payment PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3 of 7 and threatening liens of their own unless payment was made to them. Plaintiff was subsequently forced to pay one such subcontractor to prevent a lien from being filed. 18. As a further attempt to damage Plaintiffs’ business, Cho sent copies of these letters to the landlords at each restaurant space in an attempt to get the Landlords to declare Plaintiff PK in default of the leases or cause termination of the leases Plaintiff PK had at each location. 19. Because of Cho’s refusal to finish the work, Plaintiff BNG was forced to retain another construction company to finish the jobs at each location. During the construction, it came to the attention of the new construction company that Cho had done many of the items improperly, and they needed to be re-done and replaced. 20. Plaintiff BNG was forced to spent approximately $170,000.00 finishing out the leaseholds, including repairing and replacing the defective work performed by Cho. 21. Once Plaintiff BNG finished the work and the restaurants were open for business, Cho, in the middle of the night, went to two of the locations and physically stole the marquee signs off the front of the building. Demand has been made for him to return them. He has refused, claiming that he won’t return them until he is paid. 22. As a result, Plaintiff PK has been forced to purchase new signs so as to not default on its lease agreements with the landlords. VI. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 23. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants have occurred, been performed, satisfied, or otherwise fulfilled. VII. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I — BREACH 0F CONTRACT PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4 of 7 24. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 25 . Plaintiffs and Defendants had a legally enforceable contract supported by offer, acceptance, a meeting of the minds, and consideration. 26. The Plaintiffs performed all obligations. 27. Defendants breached the contract. 28. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. COUNT II — CIVIL THEFT (TEXAS THEFT LIABILITY ACT) 29. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 30. Defendant committed theft when they stole Plaintiffs’ marquee signs. 31. According to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 134.003, a person who commits thefl is liable for the damages resulting from the theft. 32. Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount necessary to buy new signs. 33. Plaintiffs also requests statutory damages of $1,000.00 per sign in accordance with 134.005 (a)(1) as well as reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees in accordance with 13.005(b). COUNT III — FRAUD 34. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 35. Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs to induce them into the contract. 36. The representations made by Defendants were material. 37 . The representations were false. 38. At the time the Defendants made the representations they knew they were false or made them recklessly without the knowledge of their truth. 39. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 5 of 7 40. Plaintiffs were damaged by the misrepresentations. COUNT IV — CONVERSION 41. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 42. Plaintiffs had a right to possession of the signs. 43. Defendants took the signs. 44. Plaintiffs demanded Defendants return the signs. 45. Defendants failed to return the signs. COUNT V — MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED 46. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 47. Defendants hold money Plaintiffs paid them before finishing the work. 48. The money in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiffs because the work was not completed. COUNT VI — INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 49. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 50. Plaintiffs had an existing business relationship subject to interference. 51. Defendants acted intentionally and willfully with the intent to interfere in that relationship. 52. The act by Defendants was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages. 53. Plaintiffs were damaged. VIII. ATTORNEY’S FEES 54. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 6 of 7 55. Because of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been forced to retain counsel to prosecute this suit. Plaintiffs seek recovery of their reasonably and necessary attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 of the Texas Practice and Remedies Code. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter: l. A judgment in favor Plaintiffs against Defendants all other actual or economic damages suffered by Plaintiffs; An order awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; Pre and post-judgement interest at the highest applicable rates allowable by law; Exemplary damages for fraudulent conduct; Statutory damages; and Any and all other relief in law and equity to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM /s/ Jordan Whiddon TAILIM SONG State Bar No. 00792845 tsong@tailimsong.com JORDAN WHIDDON State Bar No. 24093350 jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 480 Dallas, Texas 75251 (214) 528-8400 Telephone (214) 528-8402 Facsimile PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION Page 7 of 7 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Tailim Song on behalf of Tailim Song Bar No. 00792845 tsong@tailimsong.com Envelope ID: 52612831 Status as of 4/22/2021 8:48 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Yuliana Ramirez yuliana@tailimsong.com 4/19/2021 5:57:36 PM SENT Tailim Song tsong@tailimsong.com 4/19/2021 5:57:36 PM SENT Jordan Whiddon jwhiddon@tailimsong.com 4/19/2021 5:57:36 PM SENT