Full opinion text
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [749, 750, 763]; DENYING MOTIONS TO JOIN IN CO-DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS [757, 764, 769]; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [762] David O. Carter, United States District Judge I. INTRO Before the Court are the Bird Marella Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 749); the Former Employee Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 750); and Defendant David Chen’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 763). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 762). The Court heard oral argument on these Motions on November 7, 2016. II. FACTS After years of litigation and extensive briefing by the parties, a level of familiarity with the facts of this case is assumed. Any facts that the Court finds relevant to the disposition of the instant Motions are noted in the Discussion section below. III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint. See generally Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1). On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) (Dkt. 489). The 4AC asserts twelve causes of action against various defendants: 1. Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Count I), 2. Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count III), 3. Fraud (Count IV), 4. Civil conspiracy to commit fraud (Count V), 5. Fraudulent transfer of LED TV Assets (Count VI), 6. Conspiracy to fraudulently transfer LED TV assets (Count VII), 7. Breach of fiduciary duty (Counts VIII, IX), 8. Declaratory relief—alter ego liability (Count X), 9. Declaratory relief—successor liability and alter ego liability (Count XI), 10. Fraudulent transfer of LED Lighting Assets (Count XII), and 11. Conspiracy to fraudulently transfer LED Lighting Assets (Count XIII). See generally 4AC. Defendants filed four Motions for Summary Judgment. The following papers have been filed with the Court: • Defendants Pixi Lighting, Inc. and Ever Venture Solutions, Inc.(collectively, the “Pixi Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 15, 2016 (Dkt. 737). Plaintiff filed its opposition on September 6, 2016 (Dkt. 794); the Pixi Defendants filed their reply on September 19, 2016 (Dkt. 827). • Shu Tze Hsu, Shou-Por Houng, Rui-Lin Hsu, Chin-Ying Hsu, Howard Houng, Gregory Hu, Li Fu, CMT, and RD (collectively, the “Bird Marella Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 15, 2016 (Dkt. 749). Plaintiff filed its opposition on September 7, 2016 (Dkt. 812); Bird Marella Defendants filed their reply on September 21, 2016 (Dkt. 842). • John Araki, Benson Lin, Arthur Moore, Juan Salcedo, Douglas Woo, and Jennifer Huang (collectively, the “Former Employee Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 15, 2016 (Dkt. 750). Plaintiff filed its opposition on September 6, 2016 (Dkt. 799); the Former Employee Defendants filed their reply on September 19, 2016 (Dkt. 834). • Defendant David Chen filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 15, 2016 (Dkt. 763). Plaintiff filed its opposition on September 6, 2016 (Dkt. 804); Chen filed his reply on September 19, 2016 (Dkt. 838). All Defendants filed Notices of Joinder concurrently with their respective Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkts. 757 (Former Employee Defendants), 764 (Bird Marella Defendants), 769 (Chen), 772 (Pixi Defendants)). Plaintiff filed an Omnibus Opposition to Defendants’ Joinders on September 6, 2016 (Dkt. 803). On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement and Stipulated Withdrawal of Certain Pending Motions (Dkt. 877), in which the Pixi Defendants withdrew their Motion and later-filed Amended Motions (Dkts. 765, 766). On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Stipulation (Dkt. 878) dismissing the Pixi Defendants from this case and amending the 4AC to remove Counts XII (fraudulent transfer of the LED Lighting Assets) and XIII (conspiracy to fraudulently transfer the LED Lighting Assets). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 15, 2016 (Dkt. 762). The Bird Marella Defendants filed their opposition on September 6, 2016 (Dkt. 793). The Former Employee Defendants and David Chen filed a joint opposition on the same day (Dkt. 795). Plaintiff filed an omnibus reply to defendants’ oppositions on September 19, 2016 (Dkt. 826). IV. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is to be granted cautiously, with due respect for a party’s right to have its factually grounded claims and defenses tried to a jury. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A court must view the facts and draw inferences in the manner most favorable to the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1992). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial, but it need not disprove the other party’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. When the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden by pointing out that the non-moving party has failed to present any genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of its case. See Musick v. Burke, 913 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir. 1990). Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to set out specific material facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A “material fact” is one which “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law....” Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact simply by making assertions in its legal papers. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense v. Walter Kidde & Co., Inc., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, there must be specific, admissible, evidence identifying the basis for the dispute. See id. The court need not “comb the record” looking for other evidence; it is only required to consider evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers and the portions of the record cited therein. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence ... will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for [the opposing party].” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. V. DISCUSSION A. Joinders Between August 15 and 17, 2016, each group of defendants described above filed a joinder, in which they “join in the substance of the ... Motions for Summary Judgment” filed by the other groups of defendants. See Dkts. 757, 764, 769, 772. 1. Legal Standard When reviewing whether to allow a party to join in a motion, the court will allow the joinder when either (1) the parties are so similarly situated that filing an independent motion would be redundant, or (2) the party seeking joinder specifically points out: which parts of the motion apply to the joining party, the joining party’s basis for standing, and the factual similarities between the joining party and moving party that give rise to a similar claim or defense. See United States v. Longoria, CR No. 89-225-FR, 1990 WL 11418, at *4 (D. Or. Jan, 31, 1990) (allowing co-defendants to join, on motion to compel discovery of informant’s identity where, same informant testified against all defendants); United States v. Ledbetter, No. 2:14-CR-127, 2015 WL 5954587, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 14, 2015) (allowing parties to join in discovery motions where the exact same discovery is requested); United States v. Cerna, No. CR-08-0730 WHA, 2011 WL 500229, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011) (holding motion to join in another’s motion should not “leave the [court] guessing as to the reasons why the motions sought to be joined apply”); United States v. Svihel, No. 15-cr-190 (2)(4) (DSD/LIB), 2016 WL 1212364, at *6 (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2016) (denying “blanket authorization to join in all motions” and requiring movant to “allege a basis for standing” and a “factual basis for joining” each motion). This is consistent with summary judgment rules requiring moving parties to “identify! ] each claim or defense ... on which summary judgment is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The “notice provision is not an unimportant technicality, but a vital procedural safeguard — [T]he notice provision ensures that litigants will have at least ten days in which to formulate and prepare their best opposition to an impending assault upon the continued viability of them claim or defense.” Massey v. Cong. Life Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 1414, 1417 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). 2. Discussion Each defendant (and group of defendants) is the subject of a different combination of claims than those alleged against other individual and entity defendants. Plaintiff alleges that each individual and entity defendant had a different role in the alleged scheme. The Court finds that the defendants are not similarly situated for the purpose of joining in co-defendants’ motions. The Notices of Joinder also do not provide sufficient notice to Plaintiff of which of their co-defendants’ grounds for summary judgment each joining party wishes to join. The Court is left to guess how and why the motions sought to be joined apply to the each joining defendant. The motions are inadequate, and the Court DENIES the Notices of Joinder. B. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)—RICO (Count I) 1. Legal Standard The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), provides both criminal and civil liability. See Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 545; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Civil RICO provides for treble damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). However, “Congress enacted RICO ‘to combat organized crime, not to provide a federal cause of action and treble damages’” for every tort plaintiff. Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-op. Ass’n, 965 F.2d 783, 786 (9th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005)). To state a claim for a civil violation of the RICO Act, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant engaged in “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity and, additionally, must establish that (5) the defendant caused injury to plaintiffs business or property.” Chaset, 300 F.3d at 1086; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1964(c); see also Odom, 486 F.3d at 547. To satisfy the conduct element, the defendant “must have some part in directing [the] affairs” of the enterprise. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1228 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (quoting Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 184, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993)). “A defendant need not be in charge of or have ‘significant control over or within [the] enterprise.’” Kelmar v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. CV 12-6826 PSG (Ex), 2012 WL 12850425, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2012) (quoting Reves, 507 U.S. at 179, n.4, 113 S.Ct. 1163). “However, more is required than ‘simply being involved,’ and ‘[s]imply performing services for the enterprise does not rise to the level of direction.’” Kelmar, WL 12850425 at *7 (quoting Walter v. Drayson, 538 F.3d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 2008)). In evaluating whether a defendant “had some part in directing the affairs” of the enterprise, the Ninth Circuit has considered whether that defendant (1) gave or took directions; (2) occupied a position in the “chain of command” through which the affairs of the enterprise are conducted; (3) knowingly implemented decisions of upper management; or (4) was indispensable to the achievement of the enterprise’s goal. See Walter v. Drayson, 538 F.3d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 2008). “It is not enough that [a defendant] failed to stop illegal activity.” Walter, 538 F.3d at 1248. Further, RICO liability requires that “the defendants conducted or participated in the conduct of the ‘enterprise’s affairs,’ not just their own affairs.” Reves, 507 U.S. at 185, 113 S.Ct. 1163 (emphasis in original). An “enterprise” is “an ongoing organization, formal or informal.” United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981). The key to determining that an enterprise exists is “that the various associates function as a continuing unit.” Id. There are two categories of “enterprises:” (1) organizations constituting legal entities, such as corporations, and (2) any group of individuals associated in fact. See id. at 581-82, 101 S.Ct. 2524. The factors courts look for to determine if there is an associated-in-fact enterprise include (1) a common purpose; (2) an ongoing organization; and (3) a continuing unit. Odom, 486 F.3d at 552. A “ ‘pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity....” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Congress intended racketeering activity to “encompass dozens of state and federal offenses, known in RICO parlance as predicates.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2090, 2096, 195 L.Ed.2d 476 (2016). Just because a defendant is liable for an underlying predicate offense, like fraud, does not mean he will be hable under RICO. See Chaset, 300 F.3d at 1087. RICO’s purpose is to reach all involved in the scheme of organized crime, “whether they are generals or foot soldiers.” United States v. Oreto, 37 F.3d 739, 750 (1st Cir. 1994); see Reves, 507 U.S. at 184, 113 S.Ct. 1163 (holding that “lower rung” employees may be liable even if they are not the primary decision-makers in the enterprise). Where a defendant commits a predicate offense as part conducting or participating in an enterprise, the defendant may be liable under RICO. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); see Walter v. Drayson, 496 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1166 (D. Haw. 2007), aff'd, 538 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 2008). To satisfy the injury requirement, a plaintiff must make two showings. “First, a civil RICO plaintiff must show that his injury was proximately caused by the [prohibited] conduct. Second, the plaintiff must show that he has suffered a concrete financial loss.” Chaset, 300 F.3d at 1086 (alteration in original) (quoting Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Stites, 258 F.3d 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. Whether Plaintiff Must Prove Intent If an alleged predicate, such as fraud, requires a plaintiff to prove intent, then a defendant will not be liable under RICO unless the plaintiff proves intent. See Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 404 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing RICO claims against government entities because a “specific intent to deceive [was] an element of the predicate act,” but “government entities are incapable of forming a malicious intent”); Best Deals on TV, Inc. v. Naveed, No. C 07-1610 SBA, 2007 WL 2825652, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2007) (dismissing RICO claim where plaintiff could not prove an intent to commit the predicate act of money laundering). 3. Domestic Injury Requirement Section 1964(c) requires civil RICO plaintiffs to allege and prove a domestic injury to their business or property. RJR Nabisco, 136 S.Ct. at 2111. Plaintiffs cannot recover for foreign injuries. Id. The Former Employee Defendants, David Chen, and the Bird Marella Defendants argue that Plaintiffs civil RICO claims fail. as a matter of. law because Plaintiff has not suffered a domestic injury as required by RICO. See FE Mot. at 17-18; 'Chen Mot. at 18; BM Mot. at 20-23. The Bird Marella Defendants filed a Notice of Lodging of Recent Authority on October 7, 2016 (Dkt. 858), attaching Bascuñan v. Daniel Yarur Elsaca, 15-CV-2009 (GBD), 2016 WL 5475998, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2016). On October 14, 2016, the Bird Marella Defendants filed an Application for Leave to Supplement Motion for Summary Judgment re; New Authority (“BM Supplemental Motion”) (Dkt. 859). This Court granted the Application on October 17, 2016 (Dkt. 864). Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief on October 18, 2016 (“Plaintiffs Supplemental Opposition”) (Dkt. 867). Defendants argue, in short, that no defendant may be held liable for a violation of § 1962 in this case, because civil RICO’s private right of action requires there be a domestic injury to the plaintiffs business or property. See FE Mot. at 17-18. Defendants argue that Plaintiff, as a foreign corporation, has not suffered and cannot suffer such an injury. See generally BM Supplemental Motion. In RJR Nabisco Inc. v. European Cmty., - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2090, 195 L.Ed.2d 476 (2016), the United. States Supreme Court considered whether RICO’s private right of action had extraterritorial application. The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) “requires a civil RICO plaintiff to allege and prove a domestic injury to business or property and does not allow for recovery for foreign injuries.” Id. at 2111. The Court expressly avoided defining “domestic” and “foreign” injury. See id. In finding that civil RICO’s private right of action required a domestic injury, the Supreme Court reasoned that “providing a private civil remedy for foreign conduct creates a potential for international friction.” Id. at 2106. While the Court also acknowledged that this friction would not be present in every case, it found that the “potential for international controversy ... militates against recognizing foreign-injury claims without clear direction from Congress.” Id. at 2107. The Court found there was no such direction in the RICO statute. Defendants rely almost exclusively on Baseman for the proposition that whether an injury is domestic for the purposes of civil RICO depends exclusively on where the plaintiff suffered the injury, not at all on where the defendant’s alleged conduct took place. The plaintiff in Baseman was a citizen and resident of Chile. Id. at *1. Because the plaintiff was very ill, he hired his cousin—also a citizen and resident of Chile—to manage the very large estate he inherited from his parents. Id. at *1-*2. This estate included “a substantial number of shares in ... the third-largest bank in Chile.” Id. at *1. With the help of individual and corporate co-conspirators, this cousin allegedly perpetrated several fraudulent schemes, misappropriating millions of dollars from the plaintiffs estate. Id. at *2. As part of' these schemes, the defendants made fraudulent transactions causing New York banks to wire money to defendants’ accounts in New York and elsewhere. Id. An individual co-conspirator also traveled to New York and physically removed the plaintiffs bank shares from the plaintiffs safety deposit box in a New York bank. Id. In a thoughtful opinion, the Baseman court held that “the location where the plaintiff suffered the alleged injury dictates whether the plaintiff may pursue a private right of action under § 1964(c).” Id. at *5. In so holding, the court pointed to the Supreme Court’s finding that “[n]othing in § 1964(c) provides a clear indication that Congress intended to create a private right of action for injuries suffered outside of the United States.” Id. at 5 (quoting RJR Nabisco, 136 S.Ct. at 2108). The Bascuñan court also pointed to language dismissing the RJR Nabisco plaintiffs’ RICO claims because they “rest[ed] entirely on injury suffered abroad.” Id. (quoting RJR Nabisco, 136 S.Ct. at 2111). In light of this language, the court found that “there will be situations where a defendant’s conduct will be ... subject to a private right of action by a domestic plaintiff, but not a foreign plaintiff, based on where each plaintiff suffered their respective injuries.” Id. (citing RJR Nabisco, 136 S.Ct. at 2115 (Ginsberg, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment)). For the reasons laid out below, this Court declines to follow Bascuñan. As an initial matter, the Bascuñan court makes too much of the Court’s language in RJR Nabisco. In RJR Nabisco, the parties stipulated to the district court that the plaintiffs’ injuries were not domestic. All parties agreed that the injuries were suffered abroad. Thus, it makes sense that the Court would couch its analysis in terms of “injuries suffered outside of the United States” and “entirely ... abroad.” RJR Nabisco, 136 S.Ct. at 2108, 2111. While finding that RICO- lacks “foreign-oriented language” that would weigh towards finding extraterritoriality, the Court also explicitly said that the absence of such language “does not mean that foreign plaintiffs may not sue under RICO.” Id. at 2110 n.12 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that RJR Nabisco does not bar foreign plaintiffs who have suffered only economic injuries from bringing suit pursuant to civil RICO’s private right of action. This Court is also concerned that the Bascuñan rule amounts to immunity for U.S. corporations who, acting entirely in the United States, violate civil RICO at the expense of-foreign corporations doing business in this country. It cannot be the case that the mere fact that a loss is economic means that foreign corporations are unable to avail themselves of the protections of civil RICO, even in cases where all of the actions causing the injury took place in the United States. In the business context, most losses will be economic in nature. There is no evidence that Congress meant to completely bar foreign corporations from the protection offered by this law. It is ludicrous to think that a foreign individual could not sue under civil RICO for financial injuries incurred while they are working, traveling, or doing business in this country as the result of an American RICO operation. But, this is the logical application of the Bascuñan rule. At oral argument, the Bird Marella Defendants argued that this public policy concern does not apply to them, as they are all foreign individuals. However, the Court finds it relevant when considering what domestic injury analysis to adopt. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[t]he application of [the domestic injury rule] in any given case will not always be self-evident, as disputes may arise as to whether a particular alleged injury is ‘foreign’ or ‘domestic.’ ” RJR Nabisco, 136 S.Ct. at 2111. In this ease, the Court finds that there is a domestic injury. Here, Plaintiff is a foreign corporation doing business in the United States with a corporation wholly owned by an American company. See Plaintiffs SGDMF—BM No. 14. Although it is a foreign corporation, Plaintiff maintains a “hub” in the United States. Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Affirmative Defenses (“BM Memo”) (Dkt. 793) Ex. 2 at 288. In the course of doing business, Plaintiff extended credit and delivered goods to its creditor in the United States. Id. Ex. 2 at 32. When Plaintiff was not paid by its creditor, it pursued arbitration in the United States pursuant to a binding arbitration agreement that required arbitration to take place in Los Angeles, California. 4AC Ex. 4 at 2 (Phase II Arbitration Award, JW Case [ AXXXXXX-XX ]); id. Ex. 2 at 227-234 (Demand for Arbitration, Case No. [ AXXXXXX-XX ]). The arbitration demand was delivered to the creditor at their California address. BM Memo Ex. 2 at 227. After three years of extraordinarily contentious arbitration, Plaintiff received an arbitration áward enforceable in California. 4AC Exs. 3 (Arbitration Award, JW Case [ AXXXXXX-XX ]), 4 (Phase II Arbitration Award, JW Case [ AXXXXXX-XX ]). This award was then confirmed by the state court of California. 4AC Ex. 2 at 2 (Modified Judgment for Tatung Company, Ltd. on Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, Case No. 30-2010-00376687). However, Plaintiff was never able to collect the award or the judgment because, it alleges, its creditor and many others engaged in a RICO conspiracy to render the creditor an empty shell. See generally 4AC. Seven alleged individual conspirators are American citizens. Six alleged entity conspirators are American citizens. As part of the alleged conspiracy, assets were siphoned out of the creditor through fraudulent transfers. At least one of the eventual transferees was an American corporation (Pixi Inc./Ever Venture Solutions Inc.). See 4AC ¶¶ 39, 40. “A judgment is property.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice B., 168 F.3d 347, 362 (9th Cir. 1999). The facts are clear that Tatung owned a judgment against Richard Houng and WDE. See generally 4AC Exs. 3, 4. The instant litigation is Plaintiffs attempt to hold responsible those entities and individuals who have conspired to keep Plaintiffs money away from Plaintiff. In light of the facts described above, the Court agrees that the “defendants specifically targeted their conduct at California” with the aim of “thwarting Tatung’s rights in California.” Plaintiffs Supplemental Opposition at 6. It would be absurd to find that such activity did not result in a domestic injury to Plaintiff. Our decision is not inconsistent with the very few other district court decisions within the Ninth Circuit that interpret RJR Nabisco’s domestic injury requirement. For example, in Uthe Tech. Corp. v. Harry Allen and Aetrium, Inc., No. C 95-02377 WHA, 2016 WL 4492580 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016), the court held that a “shareholder cannot bring a RICO action where the wrong alleged is a fraud on the corporation.” Id. at *1. In Uthe, the plaintiff was an American corporation who owned one hundred percent of the shares of a Singaporean corporation. Plaintiff alleged a scheme to siphon business from this wholly-owned subsidiai-y. All of the allegedly fraudulent activity occurred in Singapore and was perpetrated by Singaporean defendants. The plaintiffs only injury was the diminution in value of its stake in the Singaporean corporation—an injury the court characterized as “domestic.” Id. at *2. However, the court found that as to the injury to the Singaporean corporation, “the claims ... flowed only from a foreign conspiracy .... Th[e] siphoning occurred a third of the way around the globe from our shore. No injury occurred in the United States.” Id. at *3. Unlike in Uthe, some of the alleged conspirators here are American and many of the actions that constitute part of the RICO scheme took place in California. The siphoning of assets out of WDE, while part of an allegedly international conspiracy, involved the transfers of assets from WDE to American corporations. There can be no argument that any alleged siphoning “occurred a third of the way around the globe from our shore.” See Uthe, 2016 WL 4492580 at *3. For all of the reasons explained above, the Court finds that Tatung has suffered a “domestic injury to business or property” for the purposes of civil RICO’s private right of action. See RJR Nabisco, 136 S.Ct. at 2111. The Court now proceeds to the defendants’ other arguments for summary judgment on Plaintiffs civil RICO claims. 4. Statute of Limitations The statute of limitations for a RICO claim is four years. See Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs, Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 156, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987). In the Ninth Circuit, the accrual date for civil RICO claims is determined by application of the “injury discovery” rule. See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 885, 122 S.Ct. 195, 151 L.Ed.2d 137 (2001). Under this rule, the civil RICO limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that underlies his cause of action. Id. A party “should know” when he has enough information to warrant an investigation which, if reasonably diligent, would lead to discovery of the claim. See id. at 1110 (citing Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Madariaga, 851 F.2d 271, 275 (9th Cir. 1988)). Once the injury is discovered, a RICO plaintiff is responsible for determining within the limitations period whether their injury was caused by a RICO scheme. See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 120 S.Ct. 1075, 1081, 145 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2000) (analogizing RICO plaintiff to a medical malpractice plaintiff, who is “responsible for determining within the limitations period then running whether the inadequacy was malpractice”). The purpose of the RICO private right of action is to “encourag[e] civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the ... prohibited practices.” Id. at 1082. Civil RICO’s “treble damages [are] accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.” Id. The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that “considerable effort may be required before a RICO plaintiff can tell whether a pattern of racketeering is demonstrable.” Id. at 1081. Nevertheless, the Court found that the “complex, concealed, or fraudulent” nature of a RICO pattern does not impair a plaintiffs ability to investigate the cause of his injury to a degree that justifies an injury and pattern discovery rule. Id. at 1081-82. The Former Employee Defendants argue that Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179, 117 S.Ct. 1984, 138 L.Ed.2d 373 (1997) holds that “predicate acts outside of the limitations period may not be considered” or, to put it another way, they argue the Court should ignore facts occurring before the Imitations period because such facts “cannot give rise to RICO liability/’ FE Mot. at 19. They are incorrect. The Court in Klehr held that the occurrence of a new predicate act within the limitation period does not allow plaintiffs to recover for injury caused by acts outside the limitation period. Id. at 189, 117 S.Ct. 1984. Plaintiffs have to show that the new act caused new harm, rather than simply using the new act as a hook to seek recovery for harm already caused by previous acts. Id. Klehr does not speak to whether a court must completely ignore acts or events that took place before the limitations period. Rather, Klehr dictates that a predicate act that is within the limitations period must have caused the injury for which the plaintiff now seeks to recover. Klehr is silent on whether events or actions outside of the limitation period can constitute an element of a plaintiffs RICO claim, assuming that the plaintiff also alleges a predicate act that is (1) within the limitation period and (2) causes a separate injury that is (3) the injury for which plaintiff now seeks recovery. This makes sense because a RICO enterprise may carry on for any length of time before resulting in an injury to plaintiff. It cannot be the case that all events, interactions, and communications that are evidence of the RICO enterprise (or conspiracy) must occur during the limitations period. If that were so, civil RICO could not be used to hold accountable enterprises that, for example, take a long time to set up an injurious act or cause an injury that takes a long time to discover. In this case, the very nature of the injury is disputed. For example, the Bird Marella Defendants characterize Plaintiffs injury as “the very same uncollectable debt” that Plaintiff sought to recover through arbitration in 2009. BM Mot. at 24. The Former Employee. defendants characterize Plaintiffs injury as its “inability to collect a debt dating to 2008.” FE Mot. at 20. An injury occurring in 2008 would certainly be outside of the limitation period because Plaintiff filed suit in November 5, 2013, triggering a limitation period that started on November 5, 2009. Defendants point to Plaintiffs February 2009 arbitration demand as evidence that Plaintiff realized its injury before the limitation period. See id. See also BM Mot. at 24. The Former Employee Defendants argue that the various fraudulent transfers that Plaintiff alleges “merely perpetuated Tatung’s inability to collect the exact same debt.” FÉ Mot. at 21. Consequently, the Former Employee Defendants argue, Plaintiffs RICO claim is based almost entirely on acts and an injury that took place outside of the limitation period, and any acts that were within the limitation period did not cause a new injury. Id. The Former Employees argue that “the alleged injury to Tatung’s ‘business or property’ was WDE’s nonpayment” of its debt to Tatung. Id. at 17. Plaintiff disputes this characterization of its injury and argues that for the purposes of its RICO claim, it was not injured until, at the earliest, WDE’s debt to Plaintiff was “rendered uncollectable due to defendants’ conduct.” FE Opp’n at 45, Plaintiff contends that its suit is timely “because it was not injured until it was unable to collect on the judgment” due to the defendants’ siphoning of assets from WDE, leaving it an “empty shell.” Id. at 43, 46. At oral argument, Plaintiff did not provide a specific date or timeframe for this injury. The undisputed facts are that Plaintiff won an arbitration award against WDE on May 7, 2010 for $21,962,034. 4AC Ex. 3 at 2. Plaintiff then won a final arbitration award (the “Phase II Award”) on November 10, 2010 that included an award of $17 million in damages plus interest from January 1, 2009 and attorney’s fees and costs of $8,880,389. Id at 22. The total Phase II Award was $25,742,854. Id The award, increased to $27,601,208.48 due to interest, was confirmed and judgment entered for Plaintiff by the California Superior Court on December 12, 2012. 4AC Ex. 2 at 2. This Court has previously found that Plaintiff was injured “when WDE’s assets in California were busted out, leaving WDE as an empty shell and Tatung without recourse to enforce its California judgment.” Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Tatung Co. Ltd.’s Fourth Amended Complaint for Insufficient Service of Process and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 778) at 14 (quoting Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion (Dkt. 717) at 17). The injury of being left without recourse to enforce a judgment requires—of course—that there be a judgment. As described above, Plaintiffs arbitration award was reduced to judgment in December 2012, well within the limitations period running from November 5, 2009 to November 5, 2013. The Bird Marella Defendants point to the fact that Plaintiffs alleged RICO injury has the same “components” or “breakdown” as the amount sought by Plaintiff in its 2009 arbitration demand. BM Mot. at 24. They argue this is evidence that the Plaintiffs injury was discovered in at least 2009. Id at 24-25. The Court finds that the “components” or amount of the claim, while relevant, are not dispositive on the issue of whether the injury alleged now is the same injury alleged in 2009. Plaintiff alleges that actions taken during the 2009-2013 arbitration proceedings rendered WDE’s debt uncollectable—as opposed to, at the time of the arbitration, merely not collected. See BM Opp’n at 27 (“... had Defendants not siphoned assets out of WDE and diverted business opportunities ... Tatung would not have suffered the RICO injury—it would have suffered a breach of contract injury that is not at issue in this case.”). Plaintiff alleges that there was a bust-out of WDE that involved the transfer of LED Lighting Assets through a series of several entities before they ended up with dismissed co-defendants Pixi Inc./EVS, and the' transfer of LED TV Assets to WD. See generally Compl. Plaintiffs claims related to the LED Lighting Assets have been dismissed. See Notice of Stipulation (Dkt. 878). The LED TV Asset transfer is the basis of Plaintiffs remaining fraudulent transfer and conspiracy to fraudulently transfer claims. See Compl. 193-201. It is undisputed that this transfer occurred in 2010, within the limitations period. See Plaintiffs SGDMF—FE No. 157. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff is alleging that the transfer of the LED TV Assets injured Plaintiff by emptying WDE of assets that could have been used to pay Plaintiff, that injury is within the limitations period. This is so even though the dollar amount is the same or similar to the debt claimed- by Plaintiff in 2009. However, Plaintiff also alleges that “business opportunities”—specifically an opportunity known as the “PTTV business”—were diverted from WDE, thereby lessening the total assets available to pay WDE’s creditors, including Plaintiff. BM Opp’n at 59. Plaintiff offers evidence that the PTTV opportunity was diverted in 2007-2008, which is outside of the limitations period. See Plaintiffs SGDMF—BM No. 69; Plaintiffs AMF—BM No. 361. The Court cannot find facts offered by any party, undisputed or otherwise, regarding Plaintiffs discovery of this diversion. Consequently, the Court finds that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the timing of Plaintiffs discovery of any injury specifically caused by the diversion of the PTTV opportunity. Because Plaintiff has offered evidence of an injury occurring during the limitations period, the Court finds that Plaintiffs claim is not barred by RICO’s four-year statute of limitations. However, absent a finding that Plaintiffs RICO claim(s) were equitably tolled, Plaintiff can seek only damages that it can tie to injuries that occurred within or that were discovered within the four-year limitations period beginning on November 5, 2009. Plaintiff argues that a triable issue of fact exists regarding equitable tolling of the RICO statute of limitations. See BM Opp’n at 30-32. “Equitable tolling doctrines, including fraudulent concealment, apply in civil RICO cases.” Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 514 (9th Cir. 1996). “The doctrine of fraudulent concealment is invoked only if the plaintiff both pleads and proves that the defendant actively misled [it], and that [it] had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the facts constituting his cause of action despite her due diligence.” Id. at 514 (emphasis in original). [E]quitable tolling does not depend on any wrongful conduct by the defendant to prevent the plaintiff from suing. Instead it focuses on whether there was excusable delay by the plaintiff. If a reasonable plaintiff would not have known of the existence of a possible claim within the limitations period, then equitable tolling will serve to extend the statute of limitations for filing suit until the plaintiff can gather what information he needs. However, equitable tolling does not postpone the statute of limitations until the existence of a claim is a virtual certainty. Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds in Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001), As discussed above, with the exception of the LED TV Assets that the Court finds were transferred within the limitations period, the Court finds there is a triable issue of material fact regarding Plaintiffs discovery of particular instances of siphoning and diverting that rendered its judgment against WDE uncollectable (and, generally, constitute predicate acts alleged against various defendants). Said differently, there is a triable issue of material fact regarding when Plaintiff discovered its injuries, and thus which injuries are within the limitations period. Accordingly, the Court finds there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiffs claims were tolled because of excusable delay of such discovery. Because the Court is not granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs RICO claims on the basis of the statute of limitations, Court will now address the various defendants’ arguments for summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiffs RICO claims. 5. Discussion—David Chen Generally, Chen argues that there is no evidence that he participated, within the meaning of § 1962(c), in “any enterprise alleged by Tatung.” Chen Mot. at 18. Specifically, Chen argues that “nothing in the record supports the allegation that [he] had any part in the management of the affairs of the enterprise alleged by Tatung or that he even knew any such enterprise existed.” Id. at 18. On the contrary, Plaintiff offers very detailed evidence, including Chen’s own emails, demonstrating that Chen regularly interacted with co-defendants, including Huang and Lin, including at times directing others in the management of WDE and Enterprise funds, including the transfer of funds. Plaintiffs Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact in Support of Opposition to Defendant Chen’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs SGDMF—Chen”) No. 3. Plaintiff also offers evidence that Chen reported to Richard Houng through co-defendant Huang. Id. at 7. a. Predicate Acts The elements of mail fraud and wire fraud are virtually identical. To establish a violation of mail or wire fraud, it is “necessary to show that (1) the defendants formed a scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) the defendants used the United States mails [or wires] or caused a use of the United States mails [or wires] in furtherance of the scheme; and (3) the defendants did so with the specific intent to deceive or defraud.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1399-400 (9th Cir. 1986); see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343. In moving to dismiss this claim against him, Chen argues that “[t]here is no evidence that any of [his] conduct sought to deceive or defraud Tatung.” Chen Mot. at 20. Chen further argues that any wire transfers “were done exclusively at [Richard] Houng’s behest, without mention of any scheme or plot to disguise the movement of funds.” Id. However, Chen misunderstands the intent requirement under the mail/wire fraud standard. The requirement of specific intent under these mail/wire fraud statutes is satisfied by “the existence of a scheme which was ‘reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension,’ and this intention is shown by examining the scheme itself.” Schreiber Distrib. Co., 806 F.2d at 1400 (citation omitted). In other words, the Court may look to the intent of the scheme when determining whether the third element of the mail/wire fraud claim is met. In a mail fraud case, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[i]ntent need not be established by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the defendant’s statements and conduct.” United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 1979). As an initial matter, intent to deceive is “a factual matter rarely free from dispute and thus rarely enabled in summary proceedings.” Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 437 F.3d 1181, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs favor, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find that Chen formed, with Richard Houng and others, a scheme to defraud Plaintiff and other creditors, that Chen used email (“the wires”) to further that scheme, and that Chen’s actions and the scheme itself demonstrate specific intent to defraud. b. Common Scheme Plaintiff has alleged that there was a “common scheme” aimed at “insulating the Houng Family from any possible risk in the event of financial trouble by cycling funds out of WDE, keeping it perpetually underfunded, and leaving it ready for defendants to quickly bust out assets.” Chen Opp’n at 18. Thus, Chen’s argument that the Court should grant summary judgment in part because he was “not employed by WDE or any other Houng related entity for many of the key events alleged,” Chen Mot. at 21, is unavailing for two reasons. First, Chen’s liability under § 1962(c) does not depend on his having been employed by WDE or any other entity during the time period(s) in question. Rather, all § 1962(c) requires is that the defendant be “employed by or associated with” an “enterprise.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), This, as explained above, is analyzed under the “operation and management” test—it is not required that an individual is employed by any specific entity. Second, Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding not only Chen’s involvement in the alleged common scheme but also Chen’s employment at the time of the allegedly fraudulent transfer constituting predicate offenses under § 1962(c). Thus, even if Plaintiff relied solely on Chen’s employment to demonstrate his involvement—which it does not—the Court could not grant summary judgment for Chen on Plaintiffs § 1962(c) claim on this basis. As laid out in the Facts section above, Chen and Plaintiff dispute almost every fact that could possibly be material to Plaintiffs § 1962(c) claim against Chen. Chen has failed to show that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to Chen’s participation in an enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Chen’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) claim. 6. Discussion—Bird Marella (Shu Tze Hsu, Shou-Por Houng, Chin-Ying Hsu, Rui-Lin Hsu, and Howard Houng) The Bird Marella Defendants argue that Plaintiffs § 1962(c) claim fails because it is facially implausible and Plaintiff cannot satisfy the “‘heavy evidentiary burden’ that applies to such implausible theories of fraud.” BM Mot. at 28. a. Attorney-Client Privilege and Rule 30(b)(6) Witness Testimony The Bird Marella Defendants contend that according to Plaintiffs own Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, Plaintiff has no knowledge of the Bird Marella Defendants’ “specific involvement” in the alleged fraudulent activity. See id. at 34-36. The Bird Marella Defendants particularly emphasize testimony that “Tatung’s lawyers ‘came up with’ the factual claims and contentions against the Bird Marella Defendants,” and take issue with counsel instructing a 30(b)(6) witness not to disclose the contents of her communications with counsel regarding counsel’s investigation into the alleged conspiracy. Id. at 34-35. Plaintiff argues that in accordance with Plaintiffs written objections to Defendants’ deposition notices, verbal objections on the record, and rulings made by the Special Master and this Court, the testimony of Plaintiffs 30(b)(6) witnesses “appropriately excluded [some of the] information obtained by [Plaintiffs] counsel.” Plaintiffs Statement of General Disputes of Material Fact in Support of Opposition to the Bird Marella Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs SGDMF—BM”) No. 11. Consequently, Plaintiff disputes the Bird Marella Defendants’ characterization of the testimony of Plaintiffs 30(b)(6) witnesses. E.g., id. The Court is unconvinced by the Bird Marella Defendants’ argument regarding Plaintiffs 30(b)(6) witnesses. Plaintiffs ability to meet the required legal standards is not foreclosed by its 30(b)(6) witnesses’ testimony that they lacked personal knowledge or “firsthand knowledge” of the Bird Marella Defendants’ involvement with the alleged RICO scheme. The Court will not grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs § 1962(c) claim against the Bird Marella Defendants on these grounds. b. Implausibility and Heightened Evidentiary Standard The Bird Marella Defendants rely heavily on Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir. 1987) for the proposition that a plaintiff who alleges an “implausible” scheme to defraud must meet a heightened evidentiary burden. See BM Mot. 28-32. In Franciscan, the defendant tile manufacturer was accused by tile dealers of fraudulently assuring them that it would continue in business and supply them with tile until a certain date. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d at 1467. The Ninth Circuit found that contrary to the plains tiffs’ allegations, the defendant “did not conduct business as though closing were likely” and had the “true intent” of staying in business. Id. at 1470. The court found this because the defendant “invested heavily” in its business right up until it closed, including undertaking “expensive projects.” Id. The court found that the defendant had “no economic incentive” to “go to such lengths merely to encourage the dealers to buy more tile.” Id. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit found the plaintiffs’ alleged scheme to be implausible. The Franciscan court held that “to avoid the stigma of implausibility, the evidentiary burden of [the plaintiffs] is heavy. If the claim is one that simply makes no economic sense[,] the parties opposing summary judgment must come forward with more persuasive evidence to support their claim than would otherwise be necessary.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court does not find the facts of Franciscan to be “closely analogous” to the instant case. However, it is good law. Therefore, the issue is whether Plaintiffs alleged scheme is implausible, thus triggering a heightened evidentiary burden. The Bird Marella Defendants argue that Plaintiffs underlying theory of the case “simply makes no economic sense.” BM Mot. at 32 (citing Franciscan, 818 F.2d at 1470). The Bird Marella Defendants point to WDE’s payments to Plaintiff totaling $122 million between 2006 and 2008, and argue that these payments cannot be squared with Tatung’s contention that as of 2004 ... [the Bird Marel-la] Defendants had hatched a plan to “prop up” WDE in an effort to induce Tatung to extend it trade credit, with the ultimate goal of “busting out” WDE’s assets, and leaving WDE’s creditors to “fight over the remaining WDE carcass.” Id. at 33. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the Bird Marella Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs theory of the case. See BM Opp’n at 32-33. Rather than alleging that the plan was always to bust out WDE, Plaintiff argues that it has alleged that the Bird Marella Defendants structured the RICO enterprise in such a way that, should it fail, WDE could be busted out without “a trail of ultimate responsibility for the WDE debt leading back to the Houng Family.” Id. at 33 (citing 4AC ¶ 90). Plaintiff also argues that WDE’s partial payment to Plaintiff is not inconsistent with its theory; rather, such payments are common in bust out schemes. Id. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs characterization of its theory of the case. Further, the Court does not find Plaintiffs theory of the case to be implausible. Rather, the Court finds that Plaintiff has produced evidence that strongly suggests its theory is plausible—and certainly enough evidence to overcome summary judgment on its § 1962(c) claim against the Bird Marella Defendants. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not required .to meet a heightened evidentiary standard, as its theory is wholly plausible. c. Direction of the Enterprise and Knowledge of Common Purpose Finally, the Bird Marella Defendants argue that there is no evidence that Chin-Ying Hsu, Howard Houng, or Rui-Lin Hsu directed the affairs of the alleged enterprise or had knowledge of the enterprise’s alleged common purpose of busting out WDE at the expense-of WDE’s creditors. See BM Mot. at 38-43. i. Chin-Ying Hsu The Bird Marella Defendants argue that Chin-Ying Hsu’s deposition testimony reveals a complete lack of knowledge of Gorham (of which she is the named owner), the connection between Gorham and Nexis (Gorham owns a minority stake in Nexis), or Westinghouse (which is owned by Nexis). Id. at 39. The. Bird Marella Defendants offer evidence that Chin-Ying Hsu never inquired about any of the Houng Family entities, or controlled or ran the business of Gorham. Id. Chin-Ying Hsu’s ownership of Gorham, the Bird Mar-ella Defendants argue, is a classic example of “mere association with an alleged enterprise, rather than [the] control” required by the operation and management test. Id. at 40. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that through Gorham, Chin-Ying Hsu “helped fund her family’s initial acquisition of ... Westinghouse.” BM Opp’n at 41. Plaintiff offers evidence that Chin-Ying Hsu signed documents as a Nexis shareholder. Plaintiffs AMF—BM No. 168. Plaintiff also offers evidence that Chin-Ying Hsu received large dividends from Nexis, for no apparent consideration, including in a year when Nexis suffered a net loss of over $39 million. Id. Nos. 169-70. Plaintiff offers detailed evidence of cash infusions made by Chin-Ying Hsu through Gorham to Nexis and WSI, and offers co-defendant Rui-Lin Hsu’s testimony that Chin-Ying Hsu pressured him to offer his personal assets as collateral to support the Westinghouse business. Id. Nos. 172, 173. See also BM Opp’n at 41-42. In light of the facts that Plaintiff has presented, there is at least a dispute of material fact regarding Chin-Ying Hsu’s “direction” of the affairs of the enterprise. Section 1962(c) does not require Chin-Ying Hsu to have had “managerial control” over the entire enterprise. Rather, Chin-Ying Hsu need only have (1) given or taken directions; (2) occupied a position in the “chain of command” through which the affairs of the enterprise are conducted; (3) knowingly implemented decisions of upper management; or (4) been indispensable to the achievement of the enterprise’s goal. See Walter, 538 F.3d at 1249. The Bird Marella Defendants have not shown that there is no dispute of material fact regarding Chin-Ying Hsu’s direction or control. Additionally, despite the deposition evidence cited to in their Motion, the Bird Marella Defendants have not demonstrated that there is no dispute of material fact regarding Chin-Ying Hsu’s knowledge of the enterprise’s common purpose. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Bird Marella Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs § 1962(c) claim against Chin-Ying Hsu. ii. Howard Houng The Bird Marella Defendants argue, generally, that Howard Houng’s directorship in Nexis was meaningless. See BM Mot. at 40. For example, the Bird Marella Defendants argue that “the mere fact that Howard Houng was asked to sign certain Nexis board resolutions does not establish his direction of the affairs of any enterprise.” Id. The Bird Marella Defendants further argue that Howard Houng was not at all involved with WDE or consulted about “major decisions” at WDE. Id. In opposition, Plaintiff offers evidence that Howard Houng signed shareholder consents and board resolutions for Nexis, as well as documents in support of Nexis, WDE, and Li Fu loans. Plaintiffs AMF— BM No. 310; see, e.g., Plaintiffs SGDMF—BM No. 79. Especially notable is evidence that in a single board resolution, Howard Houng approved more than one hundred of Nexis’s actions and decisions that had occurred in the preceding four years. Plaintiffs AMF—BM No. 311. Included in this mass approval were the WDE’s PSA and PPA with Tatung. Id. In addition, Plaintiff offers evidence that Howard Houng signed the director and shareholder resolutions that authorized Nexis’s waiver of WDE’s right to pursue the PTTV business. Id. No. 312. According to Plaintiff, these facts show that Howard Houng was in a “high-ranking positionf ] of authority in the operation of the [e]nter-prise” and was a financier and beneficiary of the enterprise. BM Opp’n at 44. The Court finds that there is a triable issue of fact regarding Howard Houng’s involvement in “WDE’s operations, decision making, or financial matters.” BM Mot. at 40. Evidence offered by Plaintiff leads to the inference that Howard Houng, while not in control of the entire enterprise or even most of it, had managerial control over Nexis—WDE’s parent company and a key player in the scheme alleged by Plaintiff. The Bird Marella Defendants also argue that Howard Houng lacked knowledge of the enterprise’s common purpose—that is, of the “general nature of the enterprise and ... that the enterprise extended beyond his individual role.” Id. at 42 (quoting United States v. Christensen, 801 F.3d 970, 985 (9th Cir. 2015), opinion amended and superseded on other grounds, United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015)). To support this argument, the Bird Marella Defendants again assert that Howard Houng “had no decisional authority with respect to WDE, was not consulted on decisions regarding WDE, and ... was not aware [that his personal assets were used to support loans to Westinghouse] and did not have ... discussion about that subject with anyone.” Id. at 42. The Court finds there is a triable issue of fact as to Howard Houng’s knowledge of the general nature of the enterprise. Plaintiff has offered facts showing that Howard Houng authorized many of Nexis’s actions that constitute the scheme alleged by Plaintiff and that he was intimately involved with financial transactions between Houng Family entities that were a part of the alleged scheme. These facts lead to an inference that Howard Houng was aware that the “enterprise extended beyond his individual role.” Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Bird Marella Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs § 1962(c) claim against Howard Houng. iii. Rui-Lin Hsu The Bird Marella Defendants argue that the facts alleged by Plaintiff are insufficient to establish Rui-Lin Hsu directed or controlled the alleged RICO enterprise. BM Mot. at 41. The Bird Marella Defendants argue Rui-Lin Hsu was not involved in the decision to launch WDE and that he disagreed with CMT’s decision provide a guarantee to WDE. Id. The Bird Marella Defendants suggest this disagreement is evidence that Rui-Lin Hsu was not a part of the propping up of WDE. Further, they argue that although Rui-Lin Hsu did pledge collateral to support certain loans, he “had no knowledge of who the ultimate borrower on the loans was.” Id. “[M]ere provision of collateral to support loans to Richard Houng,” the Bird Marella Defendants argue, “does not amount to participation in a RICO enterprise. Id. The Bird Marella Defendants further argue that Rui-Lin Hsu lacked knowledge of the common scheme—the “general nature of the enterprise—because he did not know until the day of his deposition that Plaintiff “supplied products to Westinghouse.” Id. at 42. Further, the Bird Marel-la Defendants argue that Rui-Lin Hsu’s testimony that he disagreed with co-defendant Shour-Por Houng’s decision to have CMT provide a guarantee for WDE is evidence that Rui-Lin Hsu did not understand or believe CMT to be a “paper intermediary,” as alleged by Plaintiff. Id. See BM SUF No. 72. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Rui-Lin Hsu personally benefitted from his investment in Westinghouse, including by receiving monthly payments as a consultant to WDE and Nexis. BM Opp’n at 42. Plaintiff asserts that Rui-Lin Hsu did have a role in establishing the CMT division that “handled all of WDE’s digital photo frame business.” Id.; Plaintiffs AMF—BM No. 179. Plaintiff further asserts that Rui-Lin Hsu attended regular meetings with Richard Houng and/or co-defendant Jennifer Huang to be updated on WDE. BM Opp’n at 42-43. Plaintiff offers evidence that Rui-Lin Hsu understood that Westinghouse was undercapital-ized and that he personally offered collateral for a loan to Nexis, which Nexis then “used to infuse into WDE as capital,” thereby propping up WDE. Id. at 42. Finally, Plaintiff offers evidence that the “ultimate borrower” of Rui-Lin Hsu’s loan guarantees was shown on the face of the guarantees themselves—in one case, the borrowers were WDE, Nexis, and WDT, in another the borrower was Westinghouse. Plaintiffs SGDMF—BM No. 75. Plaintiff argues that Rui-Lin Hsu was not a small fish but was at all times a “beneficial owner[] of the RICO [enterprise.” Id. at 41. The Court agrees that Rui-Lin Hsu appears to have benefitted from his involvement with CMT, Nexis, WDE, and Westinghouse. Further, whether Rui-Lin Hsu was aware of Plaintiff as a supplier of Westinghouse is irrelevant to Plaintiffs § 1962(c) claim against him. Section 1962(c) does not require that a defendant have awareness of every detail of a scheme, but simply that the defendant have knowledge of the “general nature of the enterprise and know that the enterprise extended beyond his individual role.” Christensen, 828 F.3d at 780. The evidence Plaintiff has offered leads to the inference that Rui-Lin Hsu was certainly aware tha