Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05858/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05858-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TVBI COMPANY LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

HONG THOA THI PHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05858-SI 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Before the Court is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by plaintiff TVBI Company 

Limited (“TVBI”), seeking judgment of liability on its second cause of action for breach of fiduciary 

duty and fifth cause of action for breach of contract, with the amount of damages to be established

at trial. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution 

without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for April 26, 2019.

BACKGROUND1

In June, 2013, in a separate but related action, TVBI sued Ms. Pham alleging she received 

fraudulent transfers from her then business partner and boyfriend, Wang Yu Lin, who was also a

judgment debtor of TVBI (the “Fraudulent Transfer Action”). See TVBI Company Limited v. Hong 

Thoa Thi Pham, 13-cv-2492. In that action, TVBI alleged Ms. Pham received a residence in 

Milpitas, California and a 92% shareholder interest in San Yang Entertainment (“San Yang”)

through fraudulent transfers. Id. Following the transfers, Ms. Pham became the sole owner of San 

Yang and its sole asset, the Lido Nightclub. Ms. Pham does not dispute any of these facts. Dkt. 

No. 93 at 2 (Opposition). 

 

1 The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated. 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 96 Filed 04/23/19 Page 1 of 7
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On or about August 22, 2014, TVBI and Pham settled the Fraudulent Transfer Action by 

entering into a written settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). Dkt. No. 85-5 (Exhibit 

C to Hilton Decl. – Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement: (a) Pham 

executed a promissory note in the amount of $120,000, secured by the Milpitas residence transferred 

to her by Wang (Dkt. No. 85-5 at 1 (Exh. C to Hilton Decl. – Settlement Agreement)); (b) Pham 

transferred 92% shareholder interest in San Yang to TVBI and she retained the remaining 8% (Id. 

at 2); (c) Pham executed an Employment and Management Agreement (“Employment Agreement”)

and continued to operate the Lido Nightclub for compensation of $8,000 per month (Id.; See also 

Dkt. No. 85-6 (Exh. D to Hilton Decl. – Employment Agreement)); (d) TVBI was to receive a 

minimum of $1,000 per month from the proceeds of the Lido Nightclub for the first 12 months 

following the settlement, and a minimum of $2,000 per month thereafter, along with copies of 

monthly profit and loss statements (Dkt. No. 85-5 at 3 (Exh. C to Hilton Decl. – Settlement 

Agreement); and (e) any Lido Nightclub profits after paying out Pham’s $8,000 monthly salary 

would be split – 2/3 to TVBI and 1/3 to Pham (Id. at 3). The parties also agreed that “[a]ll loans 

made by PHAM [to San Yang] will be documented with a note .... At no time shall the loans by 

PHAM exceed $10,000 and all loans shall be approved by TVBI in writing, prior to creating any 

obligation to pay PHAM for loans made to SAN YANG.” Id. at 2-3 (emphasis added). 

It is undisputed that Ms. Pham sold the Milpitas Property and paid TVBI the $120,000 

proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and that TVBI held 92% of San Yang. Dkt. No. 93 

at 2 (Opposition). Ms. Pham also followed through and made monthly payments to TVBI for a 

period of time; however, the payments were never increased to $2,000 per month as required by the 

Settlement Agreement. Dkt. No. 85-2 (Hilton Decl. ¶ 6.). Finally, beginning in February 2017, 

Pham stopped sending checks altogether. Id. ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 85-7 (Exh. E to Hilton Decl. – payment 

spreadsheet tracking Ms. Pham’s payments from October 2014 – December 2016). 

Several months after it stopped receiving payments, TVBI learned that in March 2016, Ms. 

Pham unilaterally dissolved San Yang Entertainment and transferred all its assets to Lido Enterprise2

 

2 Lido Enterprise was registered with the California Secretary of State on October 16, 2013

and is controlled exclusively by Ms. Pham. Dkt. No. 93-1 at ¶ 12 (Pham Decl.); Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 5 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 96 Filed 04/23/19 Page 2 of 7
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

– a company she solely owns and controls. Dkt. No. 93-1 ¶ 12 (Pham Decl.); Dkt. No. 93 at 3

(Opposition) (“Ms. Pham does not dispute that on March 16, 2016, she dissolved San Yang.”); Dkt. 

No. 85-11 (Exh. I to Hilton Decl. – Responses to Requests for Admission (“RAF”) Nos. 23, 24, 

25)

3

; Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 5 (Answer to Second Amended Complaint).

4 Specifically, on March 16, 2016, 

Pham filed a Certificate of Dissolution of San Yang Entertainment, Inc. with the California 

Secretary of State. Id.; Dkt. No. 85-8 (Exh. F to Hilton Decl. – Certificate of Dissolution); Dkt. No. 

85-11 (Exh. I to Hilton Decl. – Response to RAF No. 26).5 The Certificate of Dissolution falsely 

stated that the election to dissolve was made by a vote of all outstanding shares – meaning TVBI 

voted in favor of the dissolution and transfer of assets to Lido Enterprise when in fact it had no idea 

the dissolution and transfer occurred. Id. Ms. Pham admits she summarily dissolved and transferred 

the assets to Lido Enterprise without informing TVBI. Id.; Dkt. No. 85-12 at No. 7 (Exh. J to Hilton 

Decl. – Ms. Pham’s Responses to Special Interrogatories).6 

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, 

and any affidavits show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

 

(Answer to Second Amended Complaint). Lido Enterprise should not be confused with the Lido 

Nightclub which is a separate and distinct entity. Lido Nightclub was San Yang’s sole asset. 

3 Ms. Pham admitted RAF Nos. 23-25 which read respectively: 

(23) Admit that YOU filed the DISSOLUTION CERTIFICATE without giving notice to 

TVBI; 

(24) Admit that YOU filed the DISSOLUTION CERTIFICATE without seeking approval 

of TVBI; 

(25) Admit that TVBI did not elect to dissolve San Yang Entertainment, Inc.

4 Admitting Pham is the sole shareholder, sole officer and sole director of Lido Enterprise.

 

5 Ms. Pham admitted RAF No. 26 which reads: Admit that the statement in the 

DISSOLUTION CERTIFICATE that “[t]he election to dissolve was made by a vote of all the 

outstanding shares” was false.

6 Special Interrogatory No. 7 requested M. Pham identify “each person or entity that received 

any of San Yang Entertainment, Inc.’s assets upon dissolution.” The only person or entity she listed 

in her response was Lido Enterprise. 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 96 Filed 04/23/19 Page 3 of 7
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden 

of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The moving party has no burden to disprove 

matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial. The moving party 

need only demonstrate an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to 

“designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324 (quoting then 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). To carry this burden, the non-moving party must “do more than simply show 

that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). “The mere 

existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury 

could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

252, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). 

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view evidence in the light 

most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Id. at 255. 

“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences 

from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment 

. . .” Id. However, conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient 

to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. 

& Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). Parties must present admissible evidence. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c).

DISCUSSION

I. Second Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

“The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) existence of a 

fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach.”

Stanley v. Richmond, 35 Cal. App. 4th 1070, 1086, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768 (1995).

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 96 Filed 04/23/19 Page 4 of 7
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

TVBI alleges Ms. Pham breached her fiduciary duties by “failing to make the distributions 

of profit that were due to TVBI and keeping the money herself, dissolving the corporation without 

the knowledge or consent of TVBI, and distributing the assets of San Yang to herself or to Lido 

Enterprise or friends and/or family members.” Dkt. No. 32 ¶ 34 (Amended Complaint).

7

Ms. Pham does not dispute that she owed TVBI a fiduciary duty. Dkt. No. 93 at 6-7 

(Opposition). Rather, Ms. Pham argues (1) that she did not breach her duty and (2) TVBI cannot 

establish damages. Id. Her arguments fail. 

A. Breach

Ms. Pham argues that she did not breach her fiduciary duty when she dissolved San Yang

because she was exercising her business judgment and therefore cannot be liable. She claims that 

dissolving San Yang and transferring all its assets to Lido Enterprise was necessary to protect San 

Yang from wage-and-hour lawsuits from current and former employees. Dkt. No. 93 at 6 

(Opposition). But the business judgment rule “does not shield actions taken without reasonable 

inquiry, with improper motives, or as a result of a conflict of interest.” Berg & Berg Enterprises, 

LLC v. Boyle, 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1045, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d (2009) quoting Everest Investors 8 

v. McNeil Partners, 114 Cal.App.4th 411, 430 (2003). Ms. Pham has admitted that she is the sole 

shareholder, officer and director of Lido Enterprise. Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 5 (Answer to Second Amended 

Complaint). She also admits that San Yang’s assets were dissolved and transferred without 

informing TVBI. Dkt. No. 85-8 (Exh. F to Hilton Decl. – Certificate of Dissolution); Dkt. No. 85-

11 (Exh. I to Hilton Decl. – Response to RAF Nos. 23-26). Ms. Pham does not dispute that TVBI 

was a 92% shareholder of San Yang and that she did not seek or receive TVBI’s approval – as the 

majority shareholder – to dissolve San Yang. Dkt. No. 85-11 (Exh. I to Hilton Decl. – Responses 

to Requests for Admission (“RAF”) Nos. 23, 24, 25); Dkt. No. 93 at 2 (Opposition). The transaction 

was inherently conflicted and therefore cannot be protected by the business judgment rule. 

 

7 TVBI also alleges Ms. Pham breached her fiduciary duty by overpaying herself. Dkt. No. 

85-1 at 10. However, these allegations do not appear in the Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 32. 

It would be improper to grant summary judgement with respect to allegations that do not appear in 

the Amended Complaint. 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 96 Filed 04/23/19 Page 5 of 7
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ms. Pham next argues she did not breach her fiduciary duty because TVBI knew Lido 

Enterprise was running Lido Nightclub.8 Dkt. No. 93 at 7 (Opposition). But even if TVBI knew 

that Lido Enterprise existed, pursuant to its 92% stake in San Yang, TVBI would have had to 

approve the transaction to dissolve San Yang. Simply knowing that Lido Enterprise exists is 

meaningless. Ms. Pham has failed to raise a material issue of fact with respect to breach. 

B. Damages

Ms. Pham argues TVBI has failed to establish not just the amount but the existence of 

damages on its breach of fiduciary duty claim. By her own admission, the Lido Nightclub had at 

least $2,000 worth of assets – all of which went to Lido Enterprises, an entity wholly owned and 

controlled by Ms. Pham. Dkt. No 93 at 4 (Opposition). San Yang’s only asset was the Lido 

Nightclub. Ms. Pham does not dispute that she owned 8% of San Yang and TVBI owned 92%. 

Thus, at a minimum, TVBI was entitled to 92% of the $2,000 of which it received none. 

The existence of damages for purposes of the breach of fiduciary duty claim has been 

established. Because TVBI has established all the necessary elements, summary judgment with 

respect to liability on its second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is proper. 

II. Fifth Cause of Action: Breach of Contract

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the 

contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) 

the resulting damages to plaintiff.” Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811, 821, 124 

Cal. Rptr. 3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115 (2001).

 

8 Ms. Pham argues TVBI was on notice that Lido Enterprise was running Lido Nightclub 

because TVBI received profit and loss statements for San Yang that referred to Lido Enterprise. 

Dkt. No. 93 at 7. Ms. Pham cites to a declaration from her accountant, Vicky Nguyen, which states 

profit and loss statements were sent to TVBI until February 2016, when they stopped being sent 

because “TVBI stopped requesting them.” Dkt. No. 93-2 ¶ 9 (Nguyen Decl. In Support of 

Opposition). Notably, Ms. Pham does not attach or otherwise submit copies of such statements as 

evidence. Further, TVBI denies receiving such statements and notes that even if they had, they did 

not receive any statements, by Ms. Nguyen’s own admission, after February 2016. Dkt. No. 94 at 

7. Lido Nightclub was dissolved in March 2016; thus any alleged profit and loss statements TVBI 

did receive would not have put it on notice of the dissolution. Id. 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 96 Filed 04/23/19 Page 6 of 7
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

TVBI alleges “Pham breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to pay the monthly 

payments due to TVBI, by failing to make any profit distributions to TVBI, and by failing to provide 

monthly financial statements to TVBI.” Dkt. No. 32 ¶ 69. 

In her opposition, Ms. Pham does not dispute whether she breached; rather, she argues the 

amount of damages are still very much at issue. She even estimates that “at the end of the day ... 

TVBI could end up owing her money ....”9 Dkt. No. 93 at 8 (Opposition). While the Court will 

refrain from deciding the exact amount of damages due to TVBI at this time, the suggestion that 

TVBI will owe Ms. Pham money strikes the Court as highly unlikely. 

Because Ms. Pham does raise not any material issues of fact with respect to the breach of 

contract claim, summary judgment of liability is proper. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff TVBI’s motion for partial 

summary judgment with respect to liability on the second and fifth causes of action for breach of 

fiduciary duty and breach of contract respectively. The amount of damages for both causes of action

must be determined at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

9 Ms. Pham claims to have contributed $289,366.97 of her personal funds to Lido Nightclub 

that she argues should offset any alleged damages to TVBI. Dkt. No. 93-1 at ¶ 34; Dkt. No. 93-3 

(Lowenthal Decl. Ex. A – copies of checks from Ms. Pham to Lido Enterprise). However, of these 

contributions, Pham contributed all but $10,000 to Lido Enterprise – not Lido Nightclub – the 

former Ms. Pham admits she exclusively operates and controls. Id. 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 96 Filed 04/23/19 Page 7 of 7