Civil & Business Litigation Case Results

C, who wholesales imported tile and stone in Southern California, sold more than $80,000 in goods to a renovation company that had been a longtime partner. The buyer took delivery in three shipments, signed delivery receipts, and wrote in WeChat that the goods had reached the site with no problems. After the payment term passed, the buyer stopped answering calls. Four months later, when C pressed for payment, the buyer said some stone had color variations and demanded that all goods be returned to offset the debt.

• There was no formal contract, only price quotes, invoices and delivery receipts.
• The renovation company was small. Proving the color defect through the standard process would take more than a year, and the buyer's account could be emptied at any time.

• In March 2026 we filed suit and asked the court to hold the buyer's funds before judgment.
• We compiled the delivery receipts, WeChat screenshots and invoices into one evidence chart, supported by C's written statement.
• The argument was simple: the goods were received, the receipts were signed, and the buyer said there were no problems. Any defect should have been raised at the time. Raising color variation four months later was too late.
• At the May hearing, the buyer's attorney argued that the color issue offset the debt, but could not produce a single record of an objection raised at the time. The court approved the attachment, and we had the county sheriff serve the order on the buyer's bank, freezing enough funds to cover the claim.
• Once the account was frozen in June, the buyer came to the table. C did not give up principal and conceded only some interest, in exchange for two installment payments.

Date	Milestone
February 2026	Retained Lingtu Law; demand letter sent
March 2026	Lawsuit filed, with a request for prejudgment attachment of the buyer's bank funds
May 2026	Hearing; court approved the attachment
June 2026	Bank account frozen; buyer proposed settlement
Early October 2026	Second installment received; case dismissed

Over $80,000 in goods was recovered in full. The case concluded within a few months.

The debtor tried to avoid years of the client's receivables by claiming the company had been dissolved. We pierced the corporate veil and pursued the individual who actually controlled the company.

Some settlement amounts are not disclosed under confidentiality agreements.

C and L were partners in a building materials trading business in China. Beginning in 2019, L moved large sums out of the company's accounts and C's personal accounts, through loans and payments for goods he said he had advanced. He then relocated to Los Angeles. C sued in China and won at both the trial and appellate levels. The judgment became final in June 2024, ordering L to repay principal and interest of about RMB 60 million, more than $8 million. Nothing could be enforced in China, because L's assets had already been transferred out. C had someone check, and found that L owned a primary residence in Los Angeles County, and that two more properties were registered to his sister and her husband.

• A Chinese judgment cannot be used directly to place liens in the U.S. It first had to be recognized by a California court.
• L claimed the first-instance judgment had been served by publication and that he never received notice.
• The judgment included a double-interest penalty for late performance, about RMB 2 million, which the other side tried to use.

• We filed suit in January 2025 to have the Chinese judgment recognized in California, seven months after it became final.
• L's argument about notice did not hold. He had signed a power of attorney authorizing a Chinese lawyer to appear, and he personally filed the appeal. We translated and certified the power of attorney, the trial transcript and his appellate brief for the court. A person who appealed on his own could not say he was unaware of the case.
• We chose not to pursue the late-payment double interest, which removed the other side's argument.
• The judgment was recognized in July 2025 without a hearing, and L did not appeal. We recorded the judgment in Los Angeles County the same month, and a lien attached to his primary residence right away. In September the court ordered him to appear and disclose assets. He admitted on the record that the down payments on his sister's two properties came from money he had transferred out of China. We then sued his sister and her husband to unwind the transfers and placed a lis pendens on both properties. Their tax records showed incomes that could not have supported those down payments, and in March 2026 they agreed to settle.

Date	Milestone
June 2024	Chinese appellate judgment became final, ordering L to repay about RMB 60 million
January 2025	Lingtu Law filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking recognition of the Chinese judgment
July 2025	Court recognized the judgment without a hearing; judgment recorded in Los Angeles County the same month
September 2025	Court ordered L to appear and disclose assets; suit filed against his sister and her husband to unwind the property transfers, with a lis pendens recorded on the properties
March 2026	Sister and husband settled; both properties listed for sale
June 2026	Both properties transferred; sale proceeds delivered to C through escrow
September 2026	Primary residence sold at a sheriff's auction; about $7 million recovered in total

The two properties closed in June, and the proceeds went to C through escrow. The primary residence was sold at a sheriff's auction in September 2026, after the court approved the sale. Over one year and eight months, about $7 million was recovered, more than 80% of the judgment.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from a matter handled by Lingtu Law. Party identities, case details and the outcome have been changed, and it does not reflect the actual result of the original case.

Several years ago, through an acquaintance, Ms. H invested about $40,000 in a bubble tea shop that was still being set up. The other party verbally promised her principal was safe, monthly profit distributions, and a return of principal within six months. Later she was refused access to the books and heard the money had been diverted elsewhere, never spent on the shop. Three years on she had recovered only a little over $1,000. She sued on her own and finished the first round of discovery herself before bringing the case to Lingtu.

• There was only a verbal agreement, no written investment contract. California's statute of limitations for oral contracts is two years, which, counting from the six-month repayment promise, had long expired. She believed two small later payments restarted the clock, but that argument doesn't hold up legally.
• She had once written in a chat that she was leaving the money entirely in his hands and wouldn't ask how it was used, which gave him the "I only handled it for her" defense. The payee on her transfers also wasn't the defendant himself.
• She had filed as an unlimited civil case, with a claim above the $35,000 limited civil cap. Her own discovery responses contradicted each other, she had not produced any of the documents she promised, and her Chinese translations of the evidence overstated the originals.
• For years the other side kept saying "wait a little longer" and "the money is being pulled out." Even if he agreed to settle, there was a real risk he would sign and never pay.

• Lead with fraud and concealment. The fraud limitations period is three years from discovery. She learned only gradually that the books were closed to her and the money had been diverted, so she was still within time when she sued. Her original complaint already alleged misrepresentation, which gave a legal basis to amend and add a fraud cause of action.
• On evidence, we focused on a confirmation message he sent himself on the day he received the money, stating how much cash and how many checks he had taken. That one message directly contradicted his answer claiming he "never received any funds." Her "entirely in his hands" comment couldn't be hidden, so we addressed it head-on: he took the money, he promised how it would be used, he promised it was safe, and it never reached the shop, so the responsibility is his.
• After taking over, we first repaired the problems she had left: producing the documents, resolving the contradictory responses, and redoing the exhibit covers and translations. We reduced the claim to $35,000 and converted it to a limited civil case. Giving up a little over $3,000 bought the streamlined procedure, with fewer discovery requests and written declarations in place of live testimony, keeping legal fees within what the client could afford.
• We pursued the amended complaint and mediation at the same time, so we were negotiating when our leverage was strongest. Any installment settlement had to come with a stipulated judgment, so that if he defaulted, judgment for the full amount would enter immediately, rather than dismissing the case first and waiting to be paid.

Date	Milestone
Fall 2022	Ms. H invested in the bubble tea shop; he confirmed receipt by message the same day
Fall 2025	Ms. H filed suit on her own
Mar 2026	Lingtu took over, reviewed the full file, and set the plan: convert to limited civil, add fraud, negotiate in parallel
Aug 2026	Settled at mediation; the other side agreed to repay most of the principal in installments, with a stipulated judgment attached

No written contract, an expired contract claim, and harmful words from the client herself: for a while this case looked like a dead end. We switched to fraud, built on his own confirmation of receipt, moved the case into the streamlined track, and recovered the money through a settlement backed by a stipulated judgment.

The case settled at mediation. The other side agreed to repay most of the principal in installments, with a stipulated judgment attached to the agreement.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from a matter handled by Lingtu Law. Party identities, case details and the outcome have been changed, and it does not reflect the actual result of the original case.

Mr. M is a digital collectibles enthusiast. He agreed to sell an ape avatar NFT with rare traits to a buyer for a six-figure dollar price, payable in two installments. The buyer paid half, then kept putting off the balance. The NFT never left Mr. M's wallet.

• The buyer stopped replying and stopped paying. While waiting, Mr. M had turned away other interested buyers and was carrying the crypto market's price risk himself, in a market where NFT prices can drop fast.
• Mr. M had drafted his own termination proposal: cancel the deal but keep part of the payment as compensation. If written as liquidated damages, a California court could treat a clause like that as an unenforceable penalty.
• After the demand letter went out, the buyer didn't appear. Instead a third party surfaced, claiming the money already paid belonged to his investors, offering only a token amount, and hinting at a countersuit against Mr. M.

• The demand letter was signed by an attorney and sent the same day two ways, by email and by certified mail with return receipt, with every step documented. When the other side claimed the email never arrived, we resent it in the original thread quoting the original text, keeping the timeline unbroken.
• We rewrote the retained amount as compensation for actual losses (the buyers he passed up, market price risk, and enforcement costs) and stated expressly that it was not a penalty. The refund came with a firm deadline, leaving no room for "we'll sort it out later."
• We didn't respond to the third party's threats; they were archived as-is for attorney review. Before negotiating, Mr. M set his settlement floor in writing, which the attorney kept confidential while opening higher. We also insisted on two points: the buyer personally had to sign as a party, and any refund would go only to whoever actually paid, backed by the original payment records, so no one could come after the money later.

Date	Milestone
Late Mar 2026	Mr. M retained Lingtu and began collection
A few days later	Attorney-signed demand letter sent by email and certified mail the same day
Within a week	The other side sent a settlement offer; Mr. M authorized the attorney to negotiate
Apr 2026	All parties signed a written settlement: Mr. M kept substantial compensation and the NFT, with mutual releases

The other side first tried to settle for a token sum. In the end they signed an agreement the buyer himself put his name to. Mr. M still has the NFT in his wallet, the compensation is in hand, and no one can reopen this deal later.

All parties signed a written settlement. Mr. M kept a substantial amount as compensation and kept the NFT, and all parties released their claims against each other.

W worked for six years at a tax and bookkeeping firm. After leaving, she rented a small office nearby and began preparing taxes for individuals and small businesses. She announced her opening on social media, and several longtime clients reached out to her. Three months later, her former employer sued her. It alleged she violated a non-compete clause and stole client lists. The employer sought an injunction barring her from serving any former client, plus damages for "lost client income."

• She had signed an agreement at hiring that barred her from serving the company's clients for two years after leaving.
• The employer applied for an injunction. If granted, her newly launched business would have to stop.

• Non-compete: in California, employee non-compete clauses are generally unenforceable, so an employer using one to pursue an employee was itself unlawful. We made this clear in our answer. Before the injunction hearing, the employer withdrew its non-compete claim, and the court did not grant an injunction.
• Trade secrets: the employer said its client list and pricing were secret, and that she had exported large amounts of data before leaving. We required the employer to specify which items it claimed were secrets. Its first list read only "client information, business materials," which the court found insufficient.
• We had a third party examine her computer. The report showed she did not export, copy or upload company files before or after leaving. The clients had found her themselves after seeing the opening announcement.
• The employer's second description was still vague. We sent a letter pointing out that a party who sues without a valid basis can be ordered to pay the defendant's attorney's fees.

Date	Milestone
September 2025	Former employer filed suit and sought a preliminary injunction
October 2025	Answer filed, requiring the plaintiff to specify its trade secrets; before the injunction hearing the plaintiff withdrew the non-compete claim, and the court did not grant an injunction
January 2026	Plaintiff's first disclosure found insufficient
April 2026	Computer forensic report completed
June 2026	Plaintiff's second disclosure remained vague; our letter noted that a trade secret claim brought in bad faith can carry an award of the defendant's attorney's fees
Late September 2026	Plaintiff dismissed the case and may not refile

The former employer dismissed the case, may not refile it, and bore part of Ms. W's attorney's fees.

While employed, Mr. L was unilaterally underpaid, and when he left, his final paycheck was withheld. The employer even asked him to sign away his rights. We compelled the employer to produce its timekeeping and payroll records, and pursued unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, and meal and rest break penalties together.

California · Pre-litigation settlement · 2026

A company faced claims from an employee alleging sexual harassment and sex discrimination by a company principal, seeking $1,000,000+. Full litigation was expected to take more than 12 months. We thoroughly organized internal communications and complaint-handling records and moved the case toward resolution at an early stage.

California · Early resolution · 2026

More than three years after leaving, a former employee suddenly pursued claims for rest breaks, pay stub violations, and waiting time penalties. We reviewed old payroll, bank payment records, and schedules, found that some claims were clearly inflated, and resolved the matter early for a manageable amount.

California · Settled · 2026

A Bay Area tech company laid off staff after a client project was paused. A laid-off employee claimed to have raised overtime pay issues and alleged that the layoff was retaliation. We reconstructed the project termination, position changes, and internal meeting records, and sharply reduced the employee's claims.

California · Early resolution · 2026

After leaving, an employee pursued overtime and rest break claims and hinted at joining with other employees in a collective claim. We reviewed timekeeping and payroll records and found double counting and non-working time counted as overtime.

California · Settled · 2026

The client, as the employer, faced a former employee's claims for overtime pay and rest break penalties. We organized the schedules and time-clock records to show that the timekeeping was compliant.

California Labor Commissioner · Hearing · 2024

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from a matter handled by Lingtu Law. Party identities, case details and the outcome have been changed, and it does not reflect the actual result of the original case.

Mr. N runs a South Asian restaurant chain in Southern California with several locations. In early 2026, a former employee sued the restaurant on behalf of "all similarly situated employees in California," naming Mr. N personally and an affiliated company as defendants as well.

• This was an employee class action. The complaint claimed more than 100 affected workers and listed over a dozen causes of action, from overtime, minimum wage, and meal and rest breaks to wage statements and expense reimbursement, and said a PAGA claim would be added later. Each claim accrues per employee and per pay period, and with high turnover in restaurants, the numbers would get ugly if a class were certified.
• The plaintiff went after more than the company. The complaint called Mr. N a managing agent, sought to hold him personally liable under California Labor Code section 558.1, and alleged the companies behind the locations were joint employers and alter egos, to reach all of their assets together.
• The client's copy of the court papers was incomplete. It wasn't clear who the plaintiff was, when the hearing was set, or which firm represented the other side, and the deadline to respond was only 30 days from service.

• No rush to file an answer. The first step was to meet and confer with plaintiff's counsel while evaluating three options: a demurrer, a motion to strike, and a motion to compel arbitration. Knock out claims that can't stand, and if employees signed arbitration agreements at hiring, send the plaintiff to individual arbitration and keep the class claims out. Whatever could be narrowed by agreement, we tried to settle before filing any motion.
• The company and Mr. N were defended by one team with one consistent position. We flagged the owner's personal liability and the affiliated company as the top risks, had the client gather scheduling, timekeeping, payroll and personnel records for every location ahead of time, and told him to preserve evidence right away.
• We first reconstructed the incomplete papers page by page, identified the court, the claims and the hearing schedule, and calculated the response deadline from the service date. Within days of the consultation Mr. N had a one-page defense plan laying out the phases, roughly how long each takes and how fees work, so he could see every step at a glance.

Date	Milestone
Early 2026	A former employee filed a class action naming the restaurant, an affiliated company and Mr. N personally
Mar 2026	Mr. N consulted Lingtu and received a one-page defense plan within days
Spring 2026	Met and conferred with plaintiff's counsel, evaluated pleading-stage motions, then moved into discovery
Sep 2026	Settled at mediation; the class was sharply narrowed and Mr. N bears no personal liability

A complaint citing 100+ employees, a dozen-plus claims, and the owner's personal liability looked bottomless at first. We negotiated scope before money, got Mr. N personally out of the case, and closed it at mediation, so the restaurant never faced class certification or a jury.

The case settled at mediation. The class was sharply narrowed, and Mr. N no longer bears any personal liability for damages.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from a matter handled by Lingtu Law. Party identities, case details and the outcome have been changed, and it does not reflect the actual result of the original case.

Ms. Y runs a small kitchen and bath contracting company in Northern California. A former employee sued the company for unpaid wages. The case had been going for months when Ms. Y changed lawyers mid-case and brought it to Lingtu.

• Taking over mid-case left little time. The company's response deadline was close, and the file was still with prior counsel.
• The original complaint listed several causes of action: overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest breaks and waiting-time wages, plus civil penalties, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees under Labor Code section 1174 and CCP section 1021.5. For a small company, those add-on claims alone carried real risk.
• The plaintiff claimed to have worked there more than two years, while payroll records matched less than one. The company had no onboarding paperwork, so making that gap stand up in court would take evidence.

• In the first week we sent prior counsel a substitution notice and requested the file, and confirmed an extension to respond with plaintiff's counsel. When the plaintiff later agreed to amend the complaint, we didn't rush to answer or file a demurrer. We waited for the amended version and obtained plaintiff's counsel's written commitment not to seek a default while it was being revised.
• Two rounds of meet and confer on the pleadings, no motions. The plaintiff dropped the civil penalties, injunctive relief, the section 1174 claim and the section 1021.5 fee request on their own, and merged duplicate claims. The client never paid for a motion at this stage.
• Once the amended complaint arrived, we filed the answer weeks ahead of the deadline. The day before, more than a hundred special interrogatories, requests for admission and document requests had already been served on the plaintiff, aimed squarely at how long the employment actually lasted.

Date	Milestone
Spring 2025	A former employee sued the company for unpaid wages
Summer 2025	Ms. Y switched to Lingtu; meet and confer with plaintiff's counsel
Fall 2025	The plaintiff filed an amended complaint dropping several claims; we served discovery and answered early
Early 2026	Discovery confirmed less than a year of actual employment; the plaintiff's claims fell apart and the parties settled, with the company paying only a token amount

When this small company was sued, penalties, an injunction and fee claims were all hanging over it. We cut the complaint down through negotiation, then used discovery to take apart the "two-plus years" claim. The company resolved the case for almost nothing, and Ms. Y never had to go to trial.

Discovery confirmed the employment lasted less than a year, and the parties settled with the company paying only a token amount.

After a business moved out early, the landlord's attorney sent a demand letter requiring the tenant to pay the remaining rent, repair costs, penalties, and attorney's fees. We pushed back based on the vacancy period, market rent, and the landlord's duty to mitigate damages, and brought the amount owed down substantially.

California · Settled · 2026

A commercial tenant was ten months behind on rent and refused to leave. We started an expedited eviction and pursued the unpaid rent and holdover damages at the same time.

Los Angeles County · Judgment for our client · 2024

Ms. Z ran a dim sum shop in a small plaza in the San Gabriel Valley under a five-year lease, and she signed a personal guaranty. In the second year, foot traffic never picked up. She told the landlord in advance and returned the keys. Two months later the landlord sued her company and her personally, seeking the remaining three years of rent and common area charges, more than $200,000 in total.

• She was the party that breached first, and the guaranty included a waiver of various defenses.
• After she moved out she stopped managing the space, and she had no evidence of her own.

• We did not dispute whether she had breached. We disputed how much she owed. A departing tenant does not leave the landlord free to hold the space empty and collect the full rent. The landlord had to make reasonable efforts to re-lease, and losses that could have been avoided cannot be charged to the tenant.
• In March 2026 we obtained the landlord's leasing records and the new lease. The unit was rented to a bubble tea shop four months later, at a slightly higher monthly rent than Ms. Z's. The landlord's actual loss was four months of vacancy plus one brokerage fee.
• We requested two years of common area charge statements and found that costs for the plaza's exterior wall renovation had been included. The lease did not allow those costs to be passed to tenants, so the amount Ms. Z overpaid could be offset.
• We did not challenge the guaranty head-on. The guarantor's liability was limited to what the tenant owed, so reducing the tenant's account also reduced her personal exposure.

Date	Milestone
October 2025	Ms. Z returned the keys and ended operations early
December 2025	Landlord sued the company and the guarantor
March 2026	Evidence gathered; new lease and common area charge details obtained
June 2026	Parties agreed to private mediation
Early September 2026	Settlement paid in full; landlord dismissed the case

In June the parties agreed to mediate. The landlord's attorney reviewed the new lease and accepted less than 15% of the original demand. The settlement was paid in early September, and the landlord dismissed the case. Of the more than $200,000 claimed, Ms. Z ultimately paid only a fraction.

A small restaurant was sued after a fight between diners inside the restaurant caused personal injury. The plaintiff alleged the restaurant was negligent in managing safety. Using surveillance footage and employee testimony, we showed that the incident was sudden and that responsibility lay with the aggressor, keeping the restaurant's liability to a minimum.

California · Settled · 2026

The client had invested in and helped run a restaurant for years, but the business partner denied the client's shareholder status and kept control of the financial records, refusing to disclose them. We assembled the investment agreement and evidence of the client's involvement in operations, reestablished the client's shareholder status, and negotiated an exit and compensation arrangement.

California · Settled · 2026

Two shareholders disputed control of the company and distributions, and the other shareholder moved company funds without authorization. We obtained a temporary restraining order freezing the accounts and completed the division of ownership.

Los Angeles Superior Court · Settled · 2025

L co-founded two auto detailing shops with two friends and put in about $120,000 for a 30% stake. The other partner handled purchasing, scheduling and bookkeeping. Quarterly distributions were paid in the first year. In the second year the partner said business was hard and the distributions stopped. When L asked to see the books, he received one handmade profit statement. The other side also pointed to the agreement, which gave the managing partner "full responsibility for day-to-day operations," and argued a minority owner had no right to review the books.

• Apart from that statement, L had only a few chat messages and no records showing where the money had gone.
• L's goal was clear: get his money back and leave, without putting the shops at risk. If the shops closed, his 30% would be worth little.

• We did not rush into litigation. In March 2025 we sent a written demand to inspect the books, itemizing bank statements, tax returns, purchase invoices and shareholder meeting minutes.
• The other side kept delaying and produced only part of the records. In July 2025 we filed suit to compel an inspection of the books and to hold the managing partner accountable.
• The bank statements were produced in December 2025, after the court ordered it. They showed a monthly "management fee" paid to a company owned by the managing partner's spouse. Most supplies were also bought from a supplier run by his relative, at noticeably higher prices.
• We had an accountant recalculate two years of profit at market prices and used that figure in negotiations.

Date	Milestone
March 2025	Retained Lingtu Law; written demand to inspect the books
July 2025	Written accountability demand to the company; lawsuit filed to compel inspection and hold the manager liable
December 2025	Bank statements obtained through the court process
May 2026	Mediation produced a share buyback agreement
Mid-September 2026	Buyer secured financing; buyback funds deposited through escrow; L completed his exit

The other side agreed to buy back L's shares at the recalculated profit figure. L signed and exited, recovering his capital and the distributions owed to him. The shops continued operating.

W built his business in foreign trade in Southern California. Between 2020 and 2022 he bought shares of a China-based company listed in the U.S. in several purchases, with a peak position above $5 million. In March 2023 a short seller published a report claiming nearly half the company's revenue had been fabricated. The stock fell about 80% in two days, and W estimated his losses at roughly $4 million. Within two weeks, law firms had filed a class action. W received several letters saying "you don't need to do anything, just wait for the payout." He came to us to ask whether he really had to do nothing.

• After legal fees, a class settlement divided by share count would return only about 5% of losses for a position of his size.
• An individual lawsuit has a high bar, and the complaint must be very specific.
• His position was large enough to justify a separate negotiation.

• We kept W in the class for the time being to see how the defendants handled the first round. During that time we organized his three years of trades and the announcements he had reviewed, and calculated what he could recover.
• In September 2024 the court rejected most of the defendants' grounds for dismissal. In November 2024 we filed an individual suit in his name, based on facts substantially similar to those the court had just accepted. The filing also came before the limitations period expired on his earliest purchases.
• In October 2025 the class settlement received preliminary approval, and W opted out within the deadline. The defendants then had to negotiate with him individually.
• In April 2026 we took the statement of the former CFO, who admitted he had reported to management in 2021 that customer collections did not look right. In August, during mediation, that statement was on the table.

Date	Milestone
March 2023	Short-seller report published; stock fell about 80% within two days; class action filed in federal district court
June 2023	Court appointed an institutional investor as lead plaintiff; W retained Lingtu Law and remained in the class for the time being
September 2024	Court rejected most of the defendants' grounds for dismissal
November 2024	Lingtu Law filed an individual suit on W's behalf
October 2025	Class settlement preliminarily approved; W opted out within the deadline
September 2026	Individual settlement signed; amount roughly four times what he would have received from the class

In September 2026 the parties signed a settlement, and W received about $900,000. Had he shared in the class settlement, he would have received roughly $200,000.

From 2021 to 2023, Mr. Z promoted "pre-IPO original shares" of a company to Chinese community members through WeChat groups and dinners. He promised a Nasdaq listing within six months and returns of five to ten times. More than thirty people transferred money to him, from $50,000 to $800,000 each, for close to $7 million in total. The company did later go public through a reverse merger, but the investors never received any shares. At the end of 2024, someone checked the shareholder register, and their names were not on it. Mr. Z first said the shares were still in a lock-up period, then stopped responding. More than twenty investors came to Lingtu Law together.

• The biggest risk was that the money would disappear. As soon as investors began asking questions, large sums started moving out of Mr. Z's accounts.
• Mr. Z said he was only an intermediary and the money had already gone to the listed company.
• Some investors had been close friends of Mr. Z for years, and they had differing views.

• In March 2025 we filed suit. The same week, we asked the court to freeze the two accounts that had received investment funds. In May the court approved a lien on two properties in his name.
• We matched the bank records line by line. Less than a tenth had actually reached the company. Most went into down payments and mortgages on the two properties, and a further amount was transferred to his spouse, who bought a third property. In August we added the third property to the suit and to the lien.
• We had all investors use the same complaint and the same evidence, and settlement talks covered the group as a whole. In November 2025 the mediation produced an agreement. Mr. Z agreed to sell property to repay, and signed an acknowledgment: any further default would let investors seek judgment for the full amount plus interest.

Date	Milestone
March 2025	Lingtu Law filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court for more than twenty investors; the court issued a temporary freeze on two accounts the same week
May 2025	Court held the lien hearing and approved liens on two accounts and two properties
August 2025	Bank records traced a third property; added it to the suit and expanded the liens
November 2025	Mediated settlement reached; Mr. Z signed, agreeing that any further default would let investors seek judgment directly
March 2026	First two properties sold; frozen account funds and sale proceeds distributed to investors in a first round
September 2026	Third property transferred; second distribution completed

Of nearly $7 million in investments, clients recovered about $5.6 million, more than 80%.

After a couple broke up, the man moved out in a hurry, leaving many personal belongings at the residence, and the two disputed ownership of electronics, collectibles, and valuables. We helped the client organize payment records and chat logs, recovered the property the client could prove was theirs, and kept the dispute from escalating into long-term litigation.

California · Settled · 2026

H, in his early sixties, started a warehousing and logistics company in Southern California in his thirties. Over more than twenty years it grew to several hundred employees. In 2021 he met R online; she was nearly thirty years younger. They married a few months later without a prenuptial agreement. After two and a half years of marriage, R moved out and filed for divorce. Her attorney calculated that the company had grown from over $10 million during the marriage to roughly $40 million, and that with real estate and savings the community property exceeded $36 million. She claimed half. The first thing H said when he met us was: "I'm getting divorced, and I owe over $18 million?"

• At first H wanted to argue the marriage was void, believing she was after his money. But the couple had lived together for more than two years, and he could not identify any premarital deception. That path would waste a year if it failed, so we advised him to focus on property.
• The $18 million figure rested on a single claim: that the company's growth came from his hard work during the marriage.

• The company had been run by professional managers since 2016. The general manager and CFO were not H. During the marriage he went to the office only one or two days a week and mainly attended board meetings. The company's growth tracked the Southern California warehousing industry closely. An accountant spent six months on a ten-year reconstruction, showing that the salary he was entitled to during the marriage roughly matched what he actually drew. Most of that money also went into the family's living expenses, leaving little to divide.
• A house bought during the marriage had a $3 million down payment from H's premarital account. We matched three accounts' statements line by line, so that money could be recovered first.
• R said she had no income during the marriage and depended on H. But her statements showed more than ten transfers to overseas relatives, totaling roughly $700,000, none of which she had disclosed. In March 2025 she acknowledged the transfers under oath, saying she was "helping family." This $700,000 became a line item we used to offset her claim in negotiations.

Date	Milestone
April 2024	R filed for divorce, seeking more than $18 million
June 2024	Initial asset disclosures exchanged; more than ten overseas transfers identified
December 2024	Forensic accountants exchanged valuation and appreciation reports
March 2025	Both R and her accountant gave sworn testimony
September 2025	Court issued a judgment dissolving the marriage; property issues set for trial in October 2026
September 2026	Settlement reached at a court-supervised settlement conference; R received about $1.2 million, including spousal support

At a settlement conference one month before the scheduled trial in September 2026, the parties agreed. R received about $1.2 million, including spousal support, paid in a single lump sum. She had originally asked for more than $18 million.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from a matter handled by Lingtu Law. Party identities, case details and the outcome have been changed, and it does not reflect the actual result of the original case.

Mr. L works in Los Angeles and met his ex-girlfriend through a dating app. While they were together he spent more than $10,000 on a luxury watch for her. After the breakup she refused to give it back, and he came to Lingtu to prepare a complete small claims filing package.

• The watch was worth more than California's $12,500 small claims limit for individual plaintiffs. Mr. L later remembered other valuable gifts, including a handbag and jewelry, but had no proof for most of them.
• California abolished breach-of-promise-to-marry claims long ago. Unconditional gifts given during a relationship generally can't be recovered; only a gift made in contemplation of marriage can. This watch was an everyday model, not an engagement token. Their chats never mentioned marriage, and Mr. L himself referred to it as an ordinary gift.
• His only recording that sounded like talk of marriage was made secretly. California is a two-party consent state, so submitting it could get it excluded and could expose him to a countersuit. He had also never asked for the watch back in writing after the breakup.
• Small claims requires parties to appear in person, without a lawyer. Mr. L had to face the judge alone, and most of his evidence was Chinese-language WeChat screenshots.

• Sue for the watch alone and waive the amount above the limit. The other gifts lacked proof and would not have added a cent, so we left them out and kept the case in small claims, the simplest and fastest forum.
• Frame the case only as a gift conditioned on marriage, not as "she deceived me," to avoid dismissal as a breach-of-promise claim. We had Mr. L search his family group chat for messages from the days of the purchase, where he told his family about it and they replied about marriage. We added her dating profile seeking a long-term relationship and his chats telling friends he wanted to get married. Out of more than forty items we kept seven sets, and the hearing outline answered in advance any unfavorable screenshots she might produce.
• The recording was never submitted, played or forwarded. No demand letter was needed either: in mid-March he had asked for the watch in person, she refused, and he called the police on the spot. The text message from the police system was a neutral, contemporaneous record that he had asked and she had not returned it, so he could truthfully answer "yes" on the claim form's prior-demand question.
• We prepared a bilingual hearing statement he could deliver in three minutes, with written answers to the three questions the judge was most likely to ask, including "Was this an engagement gift?" and "Did she agree to marry you?" He switched WeChat to English, machine-translated each message and re-captured it, and filed the screenshots side by side, saving most of the certified translation cost.

Date	Milestone
Sep 2025	Mr. L paid for the watch in two installments and gave it to her
Mid-Mar 2026	Asked for it back in person without success; police could not resolve it
Late Mar 2026	Retained Lingtu; narrowed the claim to the watch, selected seven sets of evidence, drafted the claim form and hearing materials
Jun 2026	At the small claims hearing, the judge found the watch was a gift conditioned on marriage and ordered its return or payment up to the limit

This case started with almost no evidence of an engagement, and Mr. L's own words in his chats could have lost it for him. We narrowed the claim to one gift, held to the conditional-gift theory, and cut what he had to say alone in court to under three minutes. He recovered the maximum the court allows.

The judge found the watch was a gift conditioned on marriage and ordered the other side to return it or pay up to the small claims limit.

Adaptation note: This story is adapted from a matter handled by Lingtu Law. Party identities, case details and the outcome have been changed, and it does not reflect the actual result of the original case.

Mr. S and Mr. K once stayed at a friend's house. The friend said at the time that the place was already set up and would eventually be listed on Airbnb. Some time later, the friend claimed valuable items were missing from the house and sought tens of thousands of dollars. The friendship turned adversarial and the friend sued. Mr. S never even saw the summons before the court entered his default.

• The proof of service looked flawless on its face. The process server left the complaint at Mr. S's former address with a person living there at the time. Opposing counsel also said he had records showing Mr. S still lived there.
• The other side refused to stipulate to setting aside the default, partly because none of our materials were sworn evidence. To go to court, every statement needed a signed declaration behind it.
• The key witness's recollection didn't match the draft. The person who accepted the papers said he told the process server to take them back but the server left them anyway, while the draft had said he "refused" them.
• Time was short. Counsel expected a new law to take effect soon that would change the rules for this kind of motion, so the hearing had to happen first. Once a hearing date was set, service and filing had to be completed within 3 court days.

• Reconstruct his actual movements from card records. We read the timestamp on each of Mr. S's transaction screenshots and converted the ones from other time zones to Pacific Time; one was a late-night gas purchase in a city far from the old address. Declarations from his employer and a coworker showed he had moved out months earlier and had been living in company-provided housing since.
• All four declarations were made under penalty of perjury. Sections Mr. S had to complete personally were signed by hand in ink; the three witnesses signed by DocuSign, which California court rules permit for declarations and which made their cooperation much easier.
• The firm contacted witnesses directly, not through the client, and didn't show the witness the proof of service first, asking him to describe the day in his own words. Anything he couldn't recall clearly was cut, leaving only what he could swear to. We adjusted the argument to match: the papers were left at the old address, but Mr. S didn't return there for over a month, and by the time he first went back for mail the default had already been entered, so he could not have answered in time.
• Beat the new law's effective date. We took the earliest hearing date available and, within 3 court days, served the other side and filed the full motion with a proposed answer attached.

Date	Milestone
Jan 2026	The process server left the complaint at the address Mr. S had moved out of, with someone else accepting it
Feb 2026	The court entered default; days later Mr. S went back to the old address for mail for the first time
Mar 2026	Lingtu took the case; the other side refused to stipulate; four sworn declarations were signed and a hearing date set
May 2026	The judge granted the motion, set aside the default, and allowed Mr. S to answer

The other side had a proof of service with every box checked. We had card timestamps, the employer's testimony, and the witness's own words. With the default set aside, whether those "missing valuables" ever existed will finally have to be proven in court.

The judge granted the motion, set aside the default, and allowed Mr. S to file a formal answer.

A buyer refused to pay the balance due, and the seller demanded that the warehouse release the goods so it could collect, drawing the warehouse into the dispute between buyer and seller. We reviewed the warehousing agreement and the sales contract, established that the warehouse's responsibility was limited to its role as custodian, and got both buyer and seller to confirm this in writing, so the warehouse would not bear liability on its own.

California · Dispute resolved · 2026

After the client delivered goods as agreed, the buyer refused to pay, citing quality defects. We used inspection records and email correspondence to prove full performance.

Orange County Superior Court · Summary judgment · 2025

H paid about $150,000 to buy a Sichuan restaurant in Orange County. Before the sale, the seller showed him a year of cash register reports and bank statement screenshots, which showed steady monthly revenue. In the third month after taking over, H found that actual sales were nearly 40% lower than the reports showed. Shortly after, California tax authorities wrote that the previous owner had unpaid sales tax, and that the new buyer could be held responsible.

• The purchase agreement stated that the buyer had "independently verified the business operations." The seller insisted this was H's own decision.
• H had only screenshots, and the seller argued they proved nothing.
• Most of H's money was already in the restaurant, and he also faced the previous owner's sales tax debt.

• In August 2025 we sent a demand letter, and in October we sued the seller for fraud and breach of contract. The "independently verified" clause did not protect a seller who deliberately used false records to deceive a buyer.
• Screenshots were not enough, so we went after the seller's own sales figures reported to the tax authority. In March 2026 the court ordered production of his two years of sales tax filings. The reported sales were far below the figures shown to H. The seller now had to explain either that he had deceived the buyer or that he had underreported taxes.
• We handled the sales tax issue separately. We helped H explain his situation to the tax authority and asked it to pursue the seller first. The escrow company had released funds without a tax clearance certificate, and that gap became a point of leverage in negotiations.

Date	Milestone
April 2025	H took over the restaurant
August 2025	Retained Lingtu Law; demand letter sent
October 2025	Lawsuit filed against the seller for fraud and breach
March 2026	Seller's sales tax filings obtained through the court
Early September 2026	Mediated agreement performed; back taxes paid, refund received

At mediation, the seller's attorney reviewed the filings and agreed to refund nearly half of the purchase price. The seller paid the back taxes. The payment arrived in a single transfer in early September 2026. H withdrew his lawsuit and did not pursue the escrow company.

Between 2016 and 2018, more than twenty Chinese investors each put $500,000 into an EB-5 project combining a hotel and commercial space in Southern California. The project raised close to $100 million. In November 2022 the SEC sued two principals of the regional center, alleging they had diverted more than $30 million to repay personal debts and buy other properties. The court froze the assets and appointed a receiver. Construction had already been halted for more than a year. In early 2023 the investors began coming to Lingtu Law. They asked two questions: whether there was still a path to a green card, and whether the money could be recovered.

• The old project still supported their immigration applications, so rushing to recover money could have damaged those applications.
• The escrow bank released the first payment of more than $20 million when the release conditions had not been met, based on a single email from a principal.
• Most of the potential recovery came from the principal's insurance, and the defendants' legal fees were being drawn from the policies.

• Protecting green cards came first. The law gives uninformed investors a route: once a project is terminated for fraud, investors may move to a new project within the deadline and keep their original priority dates. The immigration service issued the termination notice in April 2023. We helped clients choose new projects, and by September all 26 had completed the transfer.
• Then recovery. Our argument to the court was simple: a bank that accepts an escrow role must follow the agreement, and funds that should not be released must not be released. In August 2024 the court rejected most of the bank's grounds for dismissal.
• We tracked the insurance balance quarterly. At the December 2025 mediation we put the numbers on the table: any further delay meant everyone would receive less. The bank, the fund manager and several insurers ultimately contributed to the settlement.

Date	Milestone
November 2022	SEC sued the regional center's principals in federal district court; the court froze assets and appointed a receiver
April 2023	Immigration service issued a termination notice for the regional center; in the same month Lingtu Law sued the principals, the escrow bank and the fund manager on behalf of clients
September 2023	All 26 clients moved to new projects within the deadline and submitted related documents
August 2024	Court rejected most of the escrow bank's grounds for dismissal; the case moved into discovery
December 2025	Multi-party mediated settlement; bank, fund manager and insurers jointly funded it
July 2026	Court approved the settlement and the final distribution plan
September 2026	No appeal was filed within the appeal period; settlement and distribution funds arrived

Combining the receiver's distribution with the settlement, the 26 clients recovered about $10.5 million in total, roughly 80% of their principal. Most kept their original priority dates in the new projects, and none was denied because of the old project.