Huynnh v. Massenya et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/23/2018. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 2/26/18)

Download PDF
IN TIlE UNITF:D STATF:S IHSTRICT COURT FOR THF: I)ISTlUCT OF MARYLAND Soull/em Dil'i\'iou .IAMF:S HUYNH, 1013FEB2b A 10: I b * Plaintiff, * v. Case No.: G.III.I".1 (.2S * KODZO MASSENYA, i'l :/1., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM * * * * * * OPINION Plaintiff .lames Huynh brought this action against thc Gaboncsc Republic ("Gabon") and three individuals. convcrsion. defcndant. Kodzo "Michacl" Massenya. Charlcs Mbonkc. and Jcan LcGrand. for ii'alld. and civil conspiracy. ECI' No. 36 deiendants. 'i 2. ECI' NO.1. Sincc thcn. this Court dismisscd Gabon as a and Huynh Hlluntarily dismisscd Mbonkc and LcGrand as ECI' No. 37. In its Novcmber 2017 Memorandum Plaintiff partial default judgment Opinion. thc Court grantcd on his claim li)r fraud or dcccit. but did not rulc on thc amount of damages hc was entitlcd to. ECI' No. "0. Prcsently pcnding bctiJre thc Court is Plaintitrs Motion to Dctcrmine Damages Without a Hcaring. ECI' No ..•.•. I laving rcvicwcd this additional submission. thc Court has determincd that no hearin!! is neccssarv. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. ~ - 2(16). For thc li)llowing rcasons. the Motion is grantcd-in-part. I. BACKGROUND! Thc Court laid out thc I~lcts of this case in its May 30.2017 Mcmorandum Opinions. and Novembcr 13.2017 ECI' No. 33. ECF No. 40. but restatcs the relcvant l~lCtshcrc. Iluvnh is r The background facts arc taken n.olll Plaintilrs Complaint. ECF No. I. and doculllents along with his Motion to Dcrcnnine Damages \Vithout a Hearing. ECF No . ..J..f. submitted by PlainlilT a Virginia resident and at all times relevant to the action owned approximately in Fairf~lx. Virginia. ECF No. I Rovcr car dealership '1'[ in Rockville. f(llIr acrcs of land I. S. Iluynh was working at a Jaguar and Land Rovcr/Range Maryland in January 20 IO. when hc mct Defendant Jcan LcGrand. Ill. ~ 10. LcGrand visitcd the Jaguar dealership approximately lilieen times between two vehicles during that time. Id January 20 I0 and October 201 D. purchasing 'i~ 10-11. In August 2010. Iluynh also met DelCndant Kodzo Massenya when Massenya visited the Id dealership. '1 12. To United Kingdom. Id the best of PlaintifTs knowledge 'i 4. Massenya represented and belief: Massenya is a resident of the that he was wealthy and expressed interest in Fairlax land. Id ~ 13. Massenya told Iluynh that he knew someone Irom Gabon - Iluynh's son of the late President of Gabon. in particular - who would be interested in purchasing land. Ill. ~ 14. On or about January 3. 2011. Massenya introduced Huynh's Charles Mbonke at the Bethesda Marriott Suites in Bethesda. Maryland. Id Plaintiffs introduced Huynh to Defendant '1 15. To and belief: Mbonke is a resident of Gabon and/or France. Id knowledge the the best of 'i 5. Mbonke himself to Huynh as the son of the late Gabonese President. Omar Bongo Ondimba. Ill. ~ 16. According to I'laintifI Mbonke also stated that he was working on behalf of the government of the Gabonese Nations. Id 'i~ S. Mbonke 17-1 passport !i'om the Gabonese "well-spoken. well-dressed Republic and serving as a Delegate from Gabon to the United allegedly showed Huynh what appeared to be a diplomatic Republic in Mbonke's and politically Iluynh again met Defendants 19. 2D II. ECF No. I '1 informed," Ill. 'i 'i I S. Huynh found Mbonke to be 16. Mbonke and Massenya at the Bethesda Marriott on January 19. During this meeting. Mbonke allegedly told Iluynh how money could be "legally printed" using "specially-produced specific chemicals. name. Id white paper" from the United States Treasury and Id '[ 20. Mbonke and Massenya told Huynh that this special white paper was 2 transported "officially from the U.S. Treasury sanctioned" to the government 1<1. by both governments. white paper in his possession. ~ 22. Mbonke and Massenya 'i 21. Mbonke with authorization allegedly paper into bona tide U.S. currency. of Gabon. and that this process was said that he had some of this Irom the Gabonese demonstrated government to Iluynh how they could turn thc white 1<1. ~ 23. Mbonkc and Masscnya asked Iluynh I()I' $800.000. which thcy would use to convert the white papcr. double his sllln of $800.000. lar his land. See i<l. 16.2011. Id. the rcmaining 'i 25. 'i 24. Huynh Onl'vlay agrccd. and withdrcw $800.000 Huynh gave Mbonke and l'vIassenya $500.000 $300.000 19.2011. to use it. See hi. soon thercal1er. Id. li'OIn his bank account on May of the funds. and turncd over n 27-31. Huynh went with I'vIbonkc and Massenya l'vIaryland. which l'vIassenya reprcsented and pay Iluynh to bc l'vIassenya's uncle's to a residcncc in Laurcl. house. ECF No. I 'i 30. I'vIbonke and l'vIassenya told Iluynh they wcre going to turn the white papcr into real money. and instruetcd him to wait in anothcr room. Id. '133. Evcntually. that the whitc papcr had a undesirable chemicals I'vIbonkc and Masscnya told Huynh pinkish tint on it. and that they would necd additional to get rid of the tint. Id. ,; 34. Huynh did not actually see any of the money during this time. 1<1. ~ 35. Mbonke and l'vIassenya told Huynh that they would allow him to hold onto his moncy and thc white paper money fiJr thc time bcing. Id. ,; 35. Masscnya purchase two safes from a Staples supply storc. which Massenya use to store the moncy. Id. ~ 37. Massenya and Iluynh wcnt to and Mbonke said they would and Mbonke told Iluynh that Huynh could kcep the safe and the moncy while I'vIbonke travclcd to Paris to retricve thc nceessary Mbonke would hold onto the combination Masscnya and the keys. Id. and Mbonke told Huynh that the chemicals of which Mbonke and Massenya would pay $170.000. , .' chemicals. and 'i" 38-40. would cost an additional ECF No.1'; 42-43. $250.000. and Huynh would need to pay the remaining According /d $80.000. 'i 44. Iluynh agreed to take out the cash. See it!. '149. to Plaintiff: Mbonke then arranged "agent from a Canadian chemical a meeting between Massenya. company,"/d ~ 45. On July 10.2011. Huynh. and an Massenya and Iluynh went to Reagan National Airport in Crystal City. Virginia to meet the agent. It!. '146. Massenya went inside the airport to get the "Canadian where Iluynh was waiting. /d chemicals agent's I(Jr approximately backpack. 'i 48. chemical agent," and brought him back out to the car Massenya. Iluynh. and the agent discusscd ten minutes. and Huynh then transfcrred the cost of the his $80.000 into the It!. ~ 49. Plaintiff Huynh believes the identity of the Canadian chemical agent to actually be Defendant the year prior. Id LeGrand. who had visitcd the Jaguar dealership Several days later. Mbonke called Huynh and said that the chemical company received part of the funds IiJr the chemicals. 'i 50. had aIld that Mbonke would return Ii'om Paris and drive to Canada with the rest of the funds. ECI' NO.1 '1 51. Ilowcver. on July 16.2011. Mbonke called again and told Huynh that while Mbonke was driving I('om thc United States to Canada. he was pulled over lor speeding. /d ~ 52. Mbonke said that he was detained tor 48 hours. that U.S. Customs all the money and chemicals. had conliscated France. forbidden from returning asked Huynh to int(mn Massenya one more time on July 20.201 maintained telcphone to the Unitcd States t(lr at Icast six months. /d ~ 52. Mbonke of what had happened. conspiracy. Defendant /d ~ 53. Iluynh met with Masscnya J. /d ~ 54. While Mbonke and Massenya havc allegcdly contact with Huynh. Iluynh has never seenthcm Huynh tilcd the instant Complaint Kodzo Masscnya. and that Mbonke had becn sent back to again. It!. ~ 56. on May 19. 2014 against thc Gabonese Charles Mbonke. and .lean LeGrand. alleging conversion. lOCI' NO.1. Dcfendant Massenya upon whom scrvice was effectuated. was scn'ed on Scptember ECI' 4 o. 10. None ofthc Rcpublic. Iraud. and civil 9. 2014. but was the only Defendants has entered an appcarance in this mattcr. Upon a motion lI'om thc Plaintiff ECI' No. J I. thc Clerk cntcrcd defimlt as to Defendant Massenya on January 9. 2015. ECI' No. 12. Plaintiff movcd for dcfillllt judgmcnt against Dcfcndant Masscnya on January 12.2015. but thc Court dcnied the Motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). which governsjudgmcnt against multiple dcfendants. ECI' No. 18. The Court determined that it would be impropcr and risk inconsistcnt judgments to grant dc filllIt judgment against one Dcfcndant before thc othcr Defendants wcre scrvcd and thc mattcr adjudicated as to all Defendants. Id at22 On August 4. 2017. this Coul1 dismisscd Gabon as a defendant. ECI' No. 36. and on August 11.2017. Iluynh voluntarily dismisscd Mbonkc and Lcgrand as dcfcndants. ECF NO.3 7. With Masscnya being the sole rcmaining dcfendant. Huyoh rencwed his Motion for Dcfault Judgment on August 18.2017. ECI' No. 39. On Novcmber 13. 2017. this Court grantcd-in-part and denied-in-part Plaintiffs Motion for Dcfault Judgmcnt. ECF No. 40. The Court found that. acccpting the unchallcngcd allcgations as true. PlaintifThad demonstratcd that Defendants wcre liable for fraud or deceit:' but he had not presented sufficient evidence for the Court to caleulate the damages to which PlaintifTwas entitled. ECI' No. 40 at 12. Specifically. the Court noted that it was not clear "whether Mr. Huynh's initial $800.000 is currently in two safes in his possession. or whether it is possessed by Mr. Massenya or his coconspirators. It is further unclear who currently has possession of Mr. Iluynh's $80.000: whether that money was in fact seized by governmcnt authorities. or \\hcther it is posscssed by Mr. Massenya or his co-conspirators:' Id at 12-13. The Court scheduled an evidcntiary hcaring to dctermine these facts. EC I' No. 42. Pin cites to documents filed on the emlli"s electronic tiling system (Ctv1/ECF) refer to (he page Ilumhcrs generated ~ythat system . .' The Court found that Defendants were not liable under PlaintiO's other two CHuses of action: conversion and civil conspimcy. ECF No. 40 ot 7-12. ! 5 On January 31. 2018. Plaintiff Iiled the now-pending Motion to Dctermine Damages Without a Hearing. along with Plaintilrs Eel' No. 44-1. Huynh clarifies that aflidavit and supporting documcntation. ECF No. 44. "1 tlrom May J 9.20 J I until January 10.20 IS"' the safes. which purportedly contained $800.000. "remained locked and unopened in my possession:' ECF No. 44- J at 3. On January 10. 2018. Plaintiff took the safes to a locksmith who. in the prcscnee of Plaintill his attorney. and a videographer. opened the safes. !d Plaintitrs $800.000 was not in the safes: rather. the safes contained "25 packages wrapped in aluminum foil and duct tape ... containing only stacks of white paper. with many discolorcd I[om age and possible ehcmicals:' Id. at 3--4. Plaintiff further states that he reported the loss of his $880.000 to the United States Government. and was not informed that the $80.000 were seized by the government. !d at 4. II. STANDAIW OF REVIEW "When a party against whom a judgment for aflinnative rclief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend. and that failure is shown by aflida\'it or otherwise. the clerk must enter the party's default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). "A defendant's default does not automatically entitle the plaintilTto cntry ofa delaultjudgment: rather. that decision is leli to the discretion of the court:' Educ. Credil Mgml. Corp. \'. Oplimum Weldillg. 285 F.R.D. 371. 373 (D. Md. 2(12). Although ..[tJhe Fourth Circuit has a 'strong policy' that 'cases he decidcd on their merits .... Choice /lolels Il1/ern. Illc. 1'. Saml1l7llh Shakli Carp .. No. DKC- J J -0438.2011 WL 5 J 18328 at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 25. 201 J) (citing Vlliled Slales \'. Shl!tfilr Equip Co. 11 F.3d 450. 453 (4th Cir. 1993». "default judgment may be appropriate when the adversary proccss has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive pal1yr-r Id. (citingS.E.C. \'. Ll/Il'haugh. 359 F. Supp. 2d 418.42 J (D. Md. 2(05)). 6 The Court has previously determined that DelCndants arc liable for fraud or deceit. ECF No. 40 at 10. Once a court establishes liability in a default judgment case. the court then makes an independent determination of damages. Axof(f Financial. U.C'. 725 F. Supp. 2d at 494. Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 54(e) limits the type of judgment that may be entercd based on a party's del:lUlt: 00/\ default judgment must not differ in kind from. or exceed in amount. what is dcmandcd in thc pleadings:' In entering default judgment. a court cannot. thercfore. award additional damages "because thc defendant could not rcasonably have expcctcd that his damages would excced thlc] amount [pled in the complaint]:. In re Gene.l)'s Dallt Teclls .. Inc .. 204 FJd 124. 132 (4th Cir. 2000). While the Court may hold a hearing to prove damages. it is not required to do so: it may rely instead on "detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate Adkil1S. Sllll1." 180 F. Supp. 2d at 17 (citing Unifed Arlisls Cor". ". Freemall. 605 F.2d 854. 857 (5th Cir. 1979)): see also l.a!Jorers . Dislriel COllllcil Pellsioll. eI {II. ". E. US .. IlIc .. No. WDQ-093174.2010 WL 1568595. at *3 (D. Md. /\pr. 16.2010) ("[OJn dcfaultjudgmcnt. the Court may only award damages without a hearing if the record supports thc damages rcqucstcd:'). III. ANALYSIS In its Novcmber Memorandum Opinion. the Court f()und: the evidcntiary record to be insuflicient to makc an indcpcndent dctcrmination of damages. Huynh has not provided any cxhibits or aflidavits which support his claim I()[ damagcs. It is unclcar li'om the Complaint whcther Mr. Iluynh's initial $800.000 is currcntly in two safes in his possession. or whethcr it is posscssed by Mr. Massenya or bis co-conspirators. It is further unclear who currently has possession of Mr. Huynh's $80.000: whether that moncy was in I:lct seized by governmcnt authorities. or whether it is posscssed by Mr. Massenya or his co-conspirators. ECFNo.40at 12-13. Thc affidavits and supporting documcntation providcd by I'laintilTwith his Motion to Determine Damages Without a Ilearing has clarified thcsc evidcntiary qucstions. /\s attcsted by 7 I'laintifC his attorney. and a locksmith. his $800.000. to a locksmith opened. and contained lei. Furthermore. I'laintifftook only 25 bundles of blank paper. wrapped in aluminum I'lainti ITreached out to the U.S. Government occurred. /d. at 4. Furthermore. May 2011. he withdrew had seized the $80.000. as Delendants I'laintiffpresents that since he gave the $880.000 to Defendants. and Delendants at 24. I'laintilTasserts hc has not had "possession or access to or control have not "madc any effort or taken any steps to rcturn bringing presented by I'laintilI in the amount of $880.000. the Court finds that he suffered damages attorney's lees. I'laintilTseeks reasonable attorney's tees Ii.Jrthe cost of his claim. but does not state why he is entitled to such lees. Srr ECF the winning party can point to some exception. the United States. parties arc ordinarily such as a contractual provision Maryland courts have previously involved "gross traud" "practiced that permits his recO\'CrY of attorney's awarded 0.44 at 4. Unless provision. lees-the prevailing attorney's not pointed to any fecs Irom Defendants. fecs wherc the defendant's willfully and oppressively upon untutored conduct trusting victims:' Empirr Rral/)' Co. Inc. \'. Flrislwr. 269 Md. 278. 288 (1973): here. however.l'laintilThas raised such an argument. additional As this issue has not been directly brieled.l'laintiffmay briefing regarding its entitlement "[iln Buckhlll1l1onBel. & Carr I/omr. Inc' \'. IV. Virginia Dr,,'/ oj'Hrahh & Human Rrs .. 532 U.S. 598. 602 (2001). I'lainlilThas or statutory I or statutory required to bcar their own attorney's party is not entitled to collect from the loser:' contractual told bank records that indicatc thaI in the afi.)resaid monies to me:' /d. at 4. Based on the totality of the evidence Regarding foil and duct tape. and reported his loss of the $800.500 from a business that he controlled./d. over any of the currency:' contained 10.2018. ECF No. 44-1 at 3. 26. 53. Thc sales were on January $880.000: he was not informed that the government I'laintilThad the two safes. which purportedly to attorney's 8 not submit lees within the next ti.)urteen days. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to Detennine Damages Without a Hearing, ECF No. 44, is granted as to PlaintitTs actual damages. Regarding his request for attorney's fees, within fourteen days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, PlaintitTmay submit additional briefing regarding his entitlement to attorney's fees and their amount. A separate Order follows. ~- Date: February Z, 72018 GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 9

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?