Guo, et al. v. Robl, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 8, 2022.  Plaintiffs assert claims of fraudulent inducement, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil racketeering under RICO, violations of the California Penal and Corporations Codes, violations of state securities laws, and breach of contract.  Plaintiffs request compensatory damages and equitable relief against defendant media production companies and related individuals and entities that allegedly induced investors into financing film projects that ultimately failed, leaving Plaintiffs with substantial losses.

Plaintiff Gosdom, Inc. (“Gosdom”) is a California corporation, and Plaintiff Vanessa Guo (“Guo”) is its Chief Executive Officer (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Defendants Kevin Robl (“Robl”) and Chris Bremble (“Bremble”) are principals and managers of Defendants Production Capital, LLC (“Production Capital”) and/or Chinese-based production company Base Media Technology Group Limited (“Base Media”), and Defendant Remington Chase (“Chase”) is the principal of Defendants Production House International, LLC (“Production House”) (collectively, “Enterprise Financing Defendants”). The remaining Defendants consist of American and Chinese filmmakers and media companies, California attorneys, and various entities based in California, Delaware, and Wyoming—all of which benefited from or were aware of the loan and investments used to finance the film projects.

The Enterprise Defendants are alleged to have engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and their investor contacts in the Chinese community in the United States and in China.  The scheme focused on offering short term, high interest loans and equity investments that would purportedly provide “bridge financing” for the production of films allegedly being produced by the Enterprise Defendants.

The complaint alleges the Enterprise Defendants convinced Plaintiffs to enter into loan agreements with investors in part by misrepresenting the prospects of profitability of its film projects by making baseless promises that the films would be “box office hits.”  In reliance on Defendants’ representations, Plaintiffs allege they entered into parallel loan agreements with Defendant Base Media and other entities controlled by Defendants. Afterward, Defendants would then direct Plaintiffs or their investors to transfer the loan mounts to entities controlled by Defendants.

Plaintiffs allege Enterprise Defendants constructed a scheme where they received investments from third parties introduced by Plaintiffs, but had no direct liability to repay the loans or investments leaving Plaintiffs liable on fraudulent investments that Defendants would not repay.

The scheme began to collapse by October 2021 when Plaintiffs began to suspect that Defendants were misusing funds for purposes not related to the films.

The complaint asserts claims of fraudulent inducement, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil racketeering under RICO, violations of the California Penal and Corporations Codes, violations of state securities laws, and breach of contract.  Plaintiffs seek damages of no less than $18 million and attorneys’ fees.

Photo of Latrice Burks Latrice Burks

With judicial clerkship experience, Latrice focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation matters, with a passion for Intellectual Property. Latrice has significant experience with state and federal courts. Latrice primarily defends corporate clients, including banks and financial institutions. Latrice is a champion for…

With judicial clerkship experience, Latrice focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation matters, with a passion for Intellectual Property. Latrice has significant experience with state and federal courts. Latrice primarily defends corporate clients, including banks and financial institutions. Latrice is a champion for Diversity and Inclusion.