Saeid Mohebbi vs U.S. Immigration Investment Center LLC
U.S. Immigration Investment Center LLC, Conti Stacey, Pirooz Parvarandeh, Violet Parvarandeh, Michael Shadman, Mahnaz Khazen, USIIC LLP, USIIC I LP and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive
Filing Date:July 02, 2015
Case:Mohebbi v. Khazen et al
Jurisdiction:Federal District Court for the Northern District of California
Civil / Criminal:Civil
This case arises out of a contractual investment relationship. Plaintiff contends that he agreed to invest over $1 million into a partnership in exchange for Defendants’ assistance in helping him qualify for the federal EB-5 immigrant visa program. He now seeks rescission of this investment contract, and brings a Second Amended Complaint with 22 causes of action against Defendants, who he alleges, among other things, fraudulently induced his investment.
Presently before the Court are two motions brought jointly by all Defendants: a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss. Defendants argue that the arbitration clause contained in the Engagement Agreement between the parties demands that this Court send the case to binding arbitration. Plaintiff, in contrast, argues that the arbitration clause was induced by fraud and is unconscionable, thus precluding its enforcement.
Having reviewed the papers and oral argument of the parties, and the governing law, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The Court finds that two of Plaintiff’s 22 causes of action, claims for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and California Business and Professions Code § 17500, fall outside the ambit of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff’s § 17500 claim previously survived Defendants’ first motion to dismiss. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim states a claim upon which relief could be granted, and therefore DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to that claim. The Court therefore STAYS Plaintiff’s false advertising claims pending the completion of arbitration. The Court DECLINES TO CONSIDER Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to claims referred to arbitration.
SAEID MOHEBBI, Plaintiff, v. MAHNAZ KHAZEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (3) STAYING CLAIMS PENDING COMPLETION OF ARBITRATIONm.pdf
On April 26, 2018, through their respective attorneys of record, the parties to these arbitration proceedings stipulated to terminate the arbitration by withdrawing of all their claims and to have no further proceedings. Based on the terms of the Stipulation, the Arbitrator’s previous orders are VACATED.Mohebbi_terminatingorder_may12018.pdf
This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or solicitation to sell shares or securities. Any such offer or solicitation will be made only by means of an investment's confidential Offering Memorandum and in accordance with the terms of all applicable securities and other laws. This website does not constitute or form part of, and should not be construed as, any offer for sale or subscription of, or any invitation to offer to buy or subscribe for, any securities, nor should it or any part of it form the basis of, or be relied on in any connection with, any contract or commitment whatsoever. EB5Projects.com LLC and its affiliates expressly disclaim any and all responsibility for any direct or consequential loss or damage of any kind whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from: (i) reliance on any information contained in the website, (ii) any error, omission or inaccuracy in any such information or (iii) any action resulting therefrom.