in Re Jinsun LLC

ACCEPTED
14-15-00568-CV
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
7/6/2015 4:58:50 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK

NO. ______

In the Court of Appeals FILED IN
14th COURT OF APPEALS
for the ___ District of Texas HOUSTON, TEXAS
Houston, Texas 7/6/2015 4:58:50 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
JINSUN LLC Clerk

Relator

ORIGINAL MANDAMUS PROCEEDING
FROM THE 113TH JUDICIAL TRIAL COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - RECORD

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jason M. Hopkins
Mary-Olga Lovett
State Bar No: 00789289
lovettm@gtlaw.com
Jason S. Lewis
State Bar No: 24007551
lewisjs@gtlaw.com
Jason M. Hopkins
State Bar No: 24059969
hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 374-3555
Facsimile: (713) 374-3505

Dated: July 6, 2015 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

1
 MANDAMUS RECORD

TAB DOCUMENT DATE

A. Plaintiff’s Original Petition 09/18/2012

B. Plaintiff’s Nineteenth Amended Petition 05/22/2015

C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition of Wayne Dolcefino 06/19/2015
and Motion for Protective Order

D. Jinsun’s Response to Motion to Quash Dolcefino Deposition 06/24/2015

E. Jinsun’s Supplemental Response to Motion to Quash 06/27/2015
Dolcefino Deposition

F. June 16, 2015 email serving Jinsun’s First Amended 06/16/2015
Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum

G. Order quashing Dolcefino deposition 06/30/2015

2
TAB A
 Filed 12 September 18 P3:26
Chris Daniel- District Clerk
Hanis County
2012-54501 / Court: 113 ED101J017084361
By: Charleta Johnson
CAUSE NO._

KHALEÐ AI-ATTAR, s IN THE DISTRTCT COURI'OF
s
Plaintiff, s
$
v. s
$ HARRTS COUNTY, TEXAS
KEVAN CASEY, FREDERICK s
HUTTNER, ANSLOW & JACLIN, s
LLP, AMIR MIR.ESKANDARI, $
TOP GEAR., INC. n/k/a $
LTIXBYARD, INC., JONATHAN s
FRIBDLANDER, and SCOTT GANN, s
s
Defendants. s JUDICIAL DISTRICT

P LAI NTI F F'S O" BI-G-JI.IAL P ETITI ON

Plaintiff, I(haled Alattar, files this Original Petition against Defendants, Kevan

Casey, Frederick Huttner, Anslow & Jaclin, LLP, Amir Mireskandari, Top Gear, Inc.

nlkla Luxeyard, Inc., Jonailran Friedlander, and Scott Gann, and would show as

follows:

p rs covERY coNTRoL_PtAN
1. Plaintiff intends for discovery to be conducted under Level z of Rule 1Ço of

the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

PARTIE,S
(\

q)
2. Plaintiff Khaied Alattar ("Alatlar") is an individual lesiding in Sugar Land,
ôo
cd
tr
I
Fort Bend County, Texas.
cô
\o
æ
Ir-
æ 3. Defendant Kevan Casey ("Casey") is an individual residing in Harlis
iiC) County, Texas and may be served with process at B W. Broad Oaks Ðlive, Houston,
-o
E
z Texas 7T056.
c)
E
o
Ê
o
q:
L
o
 4. Defendant Frederick Huttner ("Huttner") is an individual residing in
Harris County, Texas and may be served with process at 675 Bering Dlive, Suite zSoA,

Houston, Texas TT056.

5. Defendant Anslow & Jaclin, LLP ("4&J") is a New Jersey limitecl liability

partnership and may be served with process at r95 US Highway 9, Suite ao4,

Englishtovrn, New Jersey oZZz6 by serving the Texas Secretary of State.

6. Defendant Amir Mireskandari ("Mileskandari") is an individual residing

in Harris County, Texas and may be served with process at 455o Post Oal< Place, Suite

21o, Horiston, Texas TToz7.

Z. Defendant Top Gear', Inc. n/k/a Luxeyard, Inc. ("Top Gear") is a Ðelaware
corporation doing business in the State of Texas and rnay be served with process at

Delar,r'are Business Incorporators, Inc., g4zz Old Capitol Trail, Suite 7oo, Wilmington,

Delaware rg8o8 by serving the Texas Secretary of State. Top Gear is now knorvn as

Luxeyard, Inc. and its stock trades under the syrnbol LUXR.I

B. Defendant Jonathan Friedlander ("Friedlander") is an individual residing

in Las Vegas, Nevada and may be served with plocess at S4gB Vegas Drive, *76t, Las
Vegas, Nevada Bgro8 by serving the Texas Secletary of State.

g. Defendant Scott Gann ("Gann") is an individual residing in Dallas, Texas
c.ì
o and may be served with process at 5zzo Spring Valley, Suite r95, Dallas, Texas TSzS4.
o
9p
Ê-
I
JUTUSpTCTION AND VBNUB
\o
cê
Þ-
oo
10. Julisdiction and venue are proper in Harris Coun$, Texas because

o
Defendants Kevan Casey, Frederick l{uttner, and Amil Mireskandari are resiclents of
.!
E
z
o
'Top Gear changecl its ¡lame to Lrrxeyard, fnc. orr January g, 2cl-2. 'lhe company narìe is bra¡rded as
E
o
"Lr¡xeYarcl."
o
o
o 2
Eo
U
 I{arris County, Texas, and a substantial palt of the events or omissions giving rise to
Plaintiffs claims occuned in Harris County, Texas. Fulther, Plaintiff seeks recovery in

excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. Additionalìy, Top Gear has
had sufficient contacts with the State of Texas and has purposefullS' ¿uui1.U itself of the

larn¿s of this State. To subject Top Geal to jurisdiction in Texas would not offend
traditional notions of fair piay and justice. The causes of action against Top Geal arìse

out of Top Gear's contacts with this State. A&J has had suffïcient contacts with the State

of Texas and has purposefully availed itself of the larvs of this State. To sr"rbject A&J to

jurisdiction in Texas wodd not offend tlaclitional notions of fair play and justice. The

causes of action against A&J arise out of A&J's contacts witir this State . Fl'iedlandel has

had sufficient contacts with the State of Texas and has purposefully availed himself of

the laws of this State. To subject Friedlander to jurisdiction in Texas would not offend

traditional notions of fair play and justice. The causes of action against Friedlander

arise out of Friedlander's contacts with this State

SUMMARY
11. This is a suit for fi'aud and related claims alising out of an illegal "puìtìp

and duntp" stock schenre.' Defendants' carefulþ-6rchestrated plan involved a

conspiracy to fraudulently acquire the stock of a small publicly traded cornpany, then
c.l

o
artificially inflate - or' "purnp" - the price of its shares through aggressive aclvertising,
Þo

- or "duìrp" * tlre stock at the inflated plice. While such crimes
53
Ê- only to then rapidly sell
aô
æ
t--
æ are unforlunately quite prevalent, what makes this particular scheme unusual is that the

i.i
C)
underlying cornpany was a legitimate business. The fraucl in this instance was not so
'o
E
z
c.)
E
? http: //www.sec.gory'answers/pu mpdump.htrn
o
o
o
-o
() .)
Ë
C)
O
 much on an unsuspecting public as on the company's co-founders * Alattal and
Mileskandari - whose business was essentially hijaclied by Defendants,

12. The success of Defendants' pump and durnp scheme is illustrated by the

chart below, sÌrowing the track record of this "penny stock" duling the lelevant time

period:

: LUXR (Luxey6rd, lnt,) PlNt( o 5.ir:¿kCh¿r1s.co*r
6
,tê
D

tl ,tr
'l¡ ,t
iì
.6

I 1.4

1.1
.i .0

5r,ri'
c¡¡i
,6
3kr j
2lvl i .4

I 1? 18 ?6 s1ô23 714 20Jul¡ 1 Jul 16 23 AugE

13. The dlamatic rise * and later fall - of the stock price as shov¿n in the above
chait resuited in an approximately $3o,ooo,ooo.oo windfall in just 6o clays.
Defenclants, and other unnamed co-conspiratoLs, r'eaped a huge benefit at Alattar's

expense, whose own stock was restricted and thus could not be sold. Alattar seeì