1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 MITCHELL AND COMPANY, INC. (NEVADA CORPORATION), 10 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:21-CV-00426-RCJ-CSD 11 v. ORDER 12 LISA WONG, an individual 13 BOSCHAL LEE, an individual SHANON QUINLEY, an individual 14 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

15 Defendants. 16

17 Before this Court is Defendant’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification. This Court 18 dismissed this Action against Defendant Lisa Wong and Defendant Shanon Quinley for lack of 19 personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 45). Defendant Boschal Lee has not responded to the Complaint 20 because he controls the Plaintiff corporation. Additionally, Defendant Boschal Lee will likely 21 refuse to respond to this Action to keep this lawsuit going against his ex-wife and Co-Defendant. 22 Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification. 23 /// 24 /// 1 DISCUSSION 2 No party has disputed the factual background as stated in the prior Order dismissing the 3 Action for a lack of personal jurisdiction and the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration 4 of the dismissal. (ECF Nos. 45, 60). The Court recites these facts for context: 5 Plaintiff Mitchell and Company, Inc. (“Mitchell”) was a Nevada corporation until its dissolution. (ECF No. 11 at 6). Defendant Lee founded and ran the company 6 while he was married to defendant Wong. (Id.) During their divorce proceedings, a California court found that Mitchell was wholly owned by Wong and Lee and was 7 community property. (ECF No. 10-1 at 5). Accordingly, the court ordered that Mitchell’s asset, a piece of real estate in California commonly referred to as “the 8 Grand,” was to be conveyed to Wong and Lee as tenants in common and then sold so that the proceeds from the sale could be divided as part of Wong and Lee’s 9 community property. (Id.) Defendant Quinley represented Wong throughout the divorce proceedings, including when the Grand was sold and the proceeds were 10 divided. (ECF No. 6-2 at 3). In this suit, Mitchell alleges through a myriad of claims that Wong and Quinley conspired to convert and deprive Mitchell of the Grand. 11 See (ECF No. 1). Mitchell’s complaint names Lee as a defendant but does not specifically address Lee in the causes of action. (Id.) 12 (ECF No. 45 at 1-2). Under those facts and the corresponding arguments in the briefing on 13 the Motion to Dismiss, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss for a lack of personal 14 jurisdiction. (Id.) Plaintiff moved under Rule 59(e) to ask this Court to reconsider the Order 15 granting the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 48). The Court denied that motion because 16 Plaintiff did not meet its burden. (ECF No. 60). 17 Defendant Boschal Lee (“Defendant Lee”), who owns, operates, and controls the 18 Plaintiff corporation, has not moved to dismiss this Action. Defendant Lee will likely never 19 dismiss the lawsuit because he wants to continue to litigate against his ex-wife. Because 20 Defendant Lee has not dismissed the Action, Plaintiff (but really Defendant Lee) gets to 21 continue this Action against Defendant Lee. Defendant Quinley and Wong ask this Court 22 to render final judgement on this Action to cease any further litigation. 23 24 1 A Motion for Final Judgement under rule 54(b) is warranted where a District Court 2 determines there is no reason for delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Under Rule 54(b), the District 3 Court must determine whether a final judgement exists. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. 4 Co.,

(1980). There must be a decision upon a claim for relief and the District 5 Court must ensure that there is an ultimate disposition of the claims in an action.

After 6 making that finding, the District Court must then determine whether there is any just reason 7 for delay.

8 Here, the Court determined that personal jurisdiction did not exist and dismissed 9 the Action. (ECF No. 45). The Court made a decision upon the claims for relief and 10 disposed of the Action. What is remaining is Defendant Boschal’s liability. But, as 11 mentioned previously, Defendant Boschal owns, operates, and controls the Plaintiff 12 corporation. Defendant Boschal also harbors animus towards one of his fellow defendants

13 because she is his ex-wife. For that reason, Defendant Boschal will likely never move to 14 dismiss this Action. Without a doubt, there is no just reason for delay. Therefore, the Court 15 finds that a final judgment exists and there is no just reason for delay. The Court grants 16 Defendant Wong and Quinley’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification. 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 ///

23 /// 24 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification is 3 |} GRANTED. (ECF No. 51). 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the Court shall close this case. Case No. 5 |} 3:21-CV-00426-RCJ-CSD. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated this 14™ day of August 2023.

9 . ROBERT €.JONES 10 United States Déstrict Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A AEA