Mamuro Ueda filed the complaint with his counsel Mark A. Scoggins against Hidehito Hida and Mugen Corp.
Ueda is asking the court to grant him relief for actual damages amounting to 27,300,000 yen, or about $276,000, and $38,000; liquidated damages of $150,000; punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in an amount to be determined at trial, post-judgment interest at 9 percent, and other relief as the court may deem just.
In his complaint, Ueda said he was introduced to Hida by a mutual friend in 2007.
On June 18, 2006, Ueda loaned 2,000 yen to the defendant.
He added from the middle to the end of 2007, he made six additional loans to the defendant amounting in excess of 6,700 yen.
Early this year, the plaintiff said Hida offered to sell Mugen Corp. and Waft by the Sea to him.
Because the defendant was unable to pay back the money the plaintiff loaned him, both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the loans in excess of 6,700 yen would be applied to the purchase of Mugen Corp. and Waft by the Sea.
The plaintiff said he and Hida entered into a written stock transfer agreement on Jan. 12, 2008. Hida promised to transfer180,000 shares of stock in Mugen Corp. to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff added that in addition to the over 6,700 yen he paid to Hida, he made several more wire transfers to the defendant from Jan. to July 2008 in the amount of $38,000 and 3,660,000 yen.
The plaintiff said despite his completion of the $180,000 payment to the defendant, the later failed to transfer the stock as promised.
The plaintiff said by his failure to perform as required by the oral and written agreements, the defendant has cancelled the agreement and he is entitled to actual damages, attorney’s fees and liquidated damages.
Ueda is seeking to exercise his rights under the terms of the stock transfer agreement.
The plaintiff is suing the defendants with breach of contract, and for fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
He said the defendant has not been properly authorized to transfer 180,000 shares of stock in Mugen Corp., and he deceived and defrauded the plaintiff by inducing him to lend the defendant money that he did not intend to pay.
