Feng v. Lim

Citation: Not availableDocket: Civil Action No. 2010-1155

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; August 29, 2012; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jia Di Feng initiated a legal action against See-Lee Lim, an agent for Allstate Insurance Company, asserting fraud in an immigration transaction. Allstate was dismissed from the case early on. Lim, representing herself, moved for summary judgment, but the court denied this motion due to existing factual disputes regarding the transaction. 

The events in question began in June 2008, when Lim allegedly offered to obtain a green card for $30,000, requiring a $10,000 down payment. Feng provided Lim with $5,000 in cash during a meeting and later paid an additional $4,800 by check. Feng's complaint included claims for Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Unlawful Trade Practices, and a Consumer Protection Act violation, with a request for punitive damages. 

The court previously dismissed the claims against Allstate and the Negligence claim against Lim, leaving the remaining counts to be adjudicated. The legal standard for summary judgment requires that the movant demonstrate there are no genuine disputes of material fact. The court emphasized the need to view evidence in favor of the non-moving party and noted that the burden lies with the movant to prove their case clearly. The non-moving party must provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue for trial, beyond mere allegations.

Summary judgment may be granted if the nonmovants' evidence is merely colorable or not significantly probative. In this case, Lim argues for summary judgment on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and venue, claiming that no relevant events occurred in the District of Columbia. However, the Plaintiff asserts he paid Lim part of the disputed money in the District, creating a material factual dispute that precludes summary judgment. Lim also contends that the Plaintiff was repaying her for money she advanced him, dismissing the receipt as a fabrication. The Plaintiff counters that he provided Lim a down payment for a green card, which she acknowledged by issuing a receipt. This conflicting testimony between the parties further indicates that summary judgment is inappropriate. Additionally, Lim claims the Plaintiff's Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) claim lacks merit due to insufficient evidence of misrepresentation. However, the CPPA addresses various consumer protection violations, including improper trade practices, and the Plaintiff alleges that Lim misrepresented her ability to obtain a green card. Consequently, the court finds a material factual dispute exists regarding the CPPA claim. The court denies Lim's motion for summary judgment and schedules a status conference for September 18, 2012.