Spring Package LLC v. Harmonia Holdings Ltd.

2026 NY Slip Op 30678(U)

Opinion

Spring Package LLC v Harmonia Holdings Ltd. 2026 NY Slip Op 30678(U) February 20, 2026 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 517286/2025 Judge: Reginald A. Boddie Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.5172862025.KINGS.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/09/2026 3:45:56 PM] !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

At an IAS Commercial Part 12 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York on the 20th day of February 2026.

PRES ENT: Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------x

SPRING PACKAGE LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANY, Index No. 517286/2025 Plaintiff,

-against- Cal. No. 21-24 MS 2,3,6,7

HARMONIA HOLDINGS LTD., XIAHONG (A/KIA '·SOPHIE'') QI, CHUCK ZHANG, GLOBAL CREATURES, MOULIN ROUGE BROADWAY, MR NA TOUR LLC-US, MR WEST END LLC-US, MR AUSTRALIA LLC-US AND FORESIGHT Decision and Order THEATRICAL,

Defend ants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc. Nos. MS6 66-73; 92-93; 98-101 MS7 75-80; 94-97; 102

Motion sequences two and three are deemed withdrawn, having been replaced by motion

sequences six and seven. After oral argument and upon the foregoing papers, the separate motions

to dismiss plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("F AC") by defendants, Harmonia Holdings Ltd.

("Harmonia") and Xiaohong (a/k/a "Sophie") Qi ("Qi" and together with Harmonia, the

"Harmonia Defendants''); and defendant Chuck Zhang ("Zhang") are decided as follows:

l

[* 1] 1 of 9 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

According to plaintiff, Spring Package LLC ("Spring Package" or plaintiff) is the

investment vehicle through which Harmonia sourced and deployed third-party investor capital into

theatrical productions. The investment program began in 2018 when Harmonia solicited outside

investor capital to invest on those investors' behalf, including in Moulin Rouge Broadway. In

2019, the investment vehicle was spun out into a separate legal entity called Harmonia Spring

Package, LLC. The existing theatrical investments, including the Moulin Rouge Broadway

position, were transferred into the new entity, and the contributing investors became members of

the LLC. Over time, plaintiff expanded into additional investments, including in other Moulin

Rouge productions.

Qi is the chief executive officer and sole shareholder of Harmonia as well as a 15% investor

in Spring Package. According to the FAC, Qi conspired to misdirect Spring Package's investment

in four Moulin Rouge productions to Harmonia through fraudulent assignments. The F AC alleges

that Qi enlisted Zhang to act as a "pigeon" to sign and countersign four assignments including, but

not limited to, one dated October 1, 2024 (the "October I st West End Assignment"), which

transferred investments from Spring Package to Harmonia relating to the Moulin Rouge West End

production. The F AC alleges that assignments were also created by Harmonia to fraudulently

transfer Spring Package· s interest in the Broadway, North America and Australia productions of

Moulin Rouge. The F AC further alleges that, although Zhang is listed as the Chief Financial

Officer ("CFO") in the October I st West End Assignment and purports to be the authorized

signatory for Spring Package (the assignor) and Harmonia (the assignee), Zhang was never the

CFO of Spring Package and could only hold that title in Harmonia.

Based on the alleged unauthorized transfers of plaintiffs interest in the entities associated

with the different Moulin Rouge productions (MRB Musical LLC and related '·MR Entities" who

[* 2] 2 of 9 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

are also named defendants herein), plaintiff brings this action against defendants asserting claims

for unjust enrichment, misappropriation, conversion, fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence, breach of

contract, intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent interference with

contractual relations. Plaintiff alleges that it has ceased receiving distributions from the Moulin

Rouge productions, and that, in its stead, a bank account controlled by Harmonia and Qi has been

receiving its distributions.

MS 6: Harmonia Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Under motion sequence six, the Harmonia Defendants move, pre-answer, to dismiss the

FAC. First, the Harmonia Defendants argue that plaintiff never acquired its membership interests

in the MR Entities because the manner in which plaintiff acquired such interests violated New

York's LLC Law. Specifically, that (1) plaintiff lacked an operating agreement at the time of

acquiring the membership interests; (2) Ken Dingledine ("Dingledine"), who was not a member

of plaintiff, illegally assumed the role as plaintiffs manager to acquire membership interests in

MRB Musical LLC and the MR Entities; and (3) under NYLLCL § 401 (a), only plaintiffs

members had the authority to purchase or assign membership interests in MRB Musical LLC and

the MR Entities. Because Dingledine was a nonmember, the Harmonia Defendants argue that his

acts as a manager of plaintiff were void ab initio.

In addition, the Harmonia Defendants contend that the FAC improperly asserts numerous

legal causes of action to recover for the same allegedly invalid 2024 assignment. In addition to

the various claims being impermissibly duplicative, the Harmonia Defendants contend the FAC

fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment, misappropriation, conversion, fraud and fraudulent

inducement, civil conspiracy, negligence, gross negligence, willful misconduct, intentional

interference with contractual relations, negligent interference with contractual relations, and

[* 3] 3 of 9 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

punitive damages for the reasons provided in their memorandum of law. Lastly, the Harmonia

Defendants argue that Qi cannot be sued in her individual capacity since there are no corporate

veil piercing allegations.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that the Harmonia Defendants improperly assume that the

absence of a written operating agreement conclusively negates authority, ratification, or member

consent. Given that the FAC alleges that Spring Package's members collectively funded,

approved, and benefited from the investments at issue over a period of years, and that those

investments were reflected in tax reporting, capital accounts, and distributions, plaintiff submits

that whether actions taken on behalf of the LLC were authorized or ratified by the LLC' s members

presents factual questions that cannot be resolved on a CPLR 3 211 motion.

Regarding its multiple causes of action, plaintiff asserts that it has plead distinct legal

theories based on different duties, elements, and forms of misconduct, many of which do not

depend on the existence or breach of a contract at all. According to plaintiff, the F AC alleges

conduct that goes beyond nonperformance of a contract, including intentional diversion of funds,

false representations of authority, and interference with plaintiffs ownership interests, which

implicate duties independent of any contractual relationship. In addition, plaintiff states that New

York law expressly permits it to plead alternative and overlapping theories of recovery at the

pleading stage.

Regarding Qi, plaintiff contends that the F AC does not seek to impose personal liability on

Qi merely because she is Harmonia's CEO or owner and is thus not relying on veil-piercing

principles. Rather, that the F AC alleges that Qi is individually liable because she personally

participated in, directed, and orchestrated the wrongful conduct at issue.

4 of 9 [* 4] !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

In reply, the Harmonia Defendants re-emphasize that plaintiff fails to state a claim for

numerous causes of action. Additionally, the Harmonia Defendants contend that plaintiffs

ratification argument regarding Dingledine's actions fails because courts routinely deny

ratification claims when the principal's knowledge is incomplete. As for Qi's personal liability,

the Harmonia Defendants stress that the FAC fails to allege specific personal conduct beyond Qi' s

corporate role, only pleading its claims against Qi and Harmonia jointly with conclusory

allegations that Qi "orchestrated" or ''ratified"' conduct allegedly performed by Zhang. The

Harmonia Defendants argue that such allegations against Qi are conclusory and thus fail to state a

claim against her in her individual capacity.

MS 7: Zhang 's Motion to Dismiss

Under motion sequence seven, Zhang contends he is making a limited appearance to

contest personal jurisdiction and seeks dismissal of the FAC pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) and

306-b for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to effect service within 120 days of the

commencement of the action. It is undisputed that plaintiff served Zhang by leaving process with

the doorman of Qi's residential apartment building and then mailing a subsequent copy to that

address. Zhang submits this attempted service was defective as a matter of law because Qi's

apartment is not his actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode. Further,

Zhang states that he does not reside within the State of New York, he is not physically present with

regularity at Qi's apartment, and he has never transacted business there. Zhang also points out that

plaintiff made no attempt to locate Zhang prior to (or since) attempting to serve him at Qi's

residence. Thus, that plaintiffs attempted service failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR

308(2).

[* 5] 5 of 9 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

In addition to the foregoing, Zhang contends that (1) the 120-day statutory period for

effecting service has lapsed, and (2) plaintiff fails to demonstrate any reasonable diligence in

attempting to locate him. As such, Zhang argues that plaintiff cannot demonstrate the good cause

necessary for granting an extension of time to serve under CPLR 306-b and that any such relief

should be denied.

In opposition, plaintiff contends Zhang was served at his actual place of business. In this

regard, plaintiff states that the principal executive office address of Harmonia, as listed with the

New York State Department of State, is 161 West 61st Street in New York, New York. Further,

that this address is also the address identified on written assignments Zhang executed in his

capacity as Harmonia's CFO by assignments, dated April 1, 2024 and October 1, 2024. Plaintiff

points out that Zhang received actual notice of this action and that he fails to identify any

alternative location that either he or Harmonia has held out as the official business address.

Even assuming a technical defect in service, plaintiff claims dismissal is not required since

CPLR 306-b permits extension of time for service in the interest of justice. Since Zhang had actual

notice of this action and plaintiff acted in good faith by effectuating service at the only executive

office address available, plaintiff submits dismissal would be unwarranted.

In reply, Zhang argues plaintiff's offer of proof is insufficient because the contracts do not

state that 161 West 61 st Street is his business address, or even that he even transacts business there.

Rather, they simply recite Harmonia's corporate address. Zhang emphasizes that he has never held

161 West 61st Street out to be his address in either his email, the phone book, public registrations,

advertisements, or solicitations of any kind. Consequently, Zhang submits that plaintiffs only

purported evidence cannot satisfy the "regular solicitation or advertisement" requirement under

CPLR 308 (6). Further, Zhang contends that he first put plaintiff on notice of its defective service

[* 6] 6 of 9 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF •DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

by filing a motion to dismiss the original complaint on July 15, 2025. Despite doing so, Zhang

submits plaintiff did nothing to cure its defective service. Zhang thus argues plaintiff cannot

demonstrate any reasonable diligence for which the court could find good cause necessary for

granting an extension of time to serve under CPLR 306-b.

Discussion

"A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) may be granted only

where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the complaint's factual allegations, conclusively

establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Gorbatov v Tsirelman, 155 AD3d 836, 837 [2d Dept

2017] [citations omitted]). "In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a

cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the sole criterion is whether, from the complaint's

'four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action

cognizable at law"' (Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. v Bank of N. Y. Mellon, 154 AD3d 656, 662 [2d Dept

2017] [citing to Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). ..Although the facts

pleaded are presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference, bare legal

conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled to any such

consideration" (id. [citations omitted]).

Here, to the extent the Harmonia Defendants seek to dismiss the FAC on the ground that

plaintiff acquired its membership interests in the MR Entities in a manner that violated New York's

LLC Law, the Harmonia Defendants fail to establish that, as a matter oflaw, dismissal is warranted

on this basis. In addition, there is no reason to dismiss Qi as an individual defendant for the reason

stated by plaintiff, namely, the FAC alleges direct wrongdoing by Qi. The allegations against Qi,

as plead, are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

[* 7] 7 of 9 INDEX NO. 517286/2025 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

As for the Harmonia Defendants' argument that many of plaintiff's causes of action are

duplicative or fail to state a claim, construing the complaint liberally and accounting for plaintiffs

desire to plead in the alternative, the court finds that plaintiffs causes of action for unjust

enrichment, fraudulent concealment (but not fraud), negligence, gross negligence, willful

misconduct, intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent interference with

contractual relations are all duplicative of one or more of the surviving causes of action as against

the Harmonia Defendants. As such, these claims are dismissed as against them. The remaining

claims are sufficiently plead under the circumstances.

Turning to Zhang· s motion to dismiss, "CPLR 308 (2) permits personal service on a natural

person by delivering a copy of the summons within this State to a person of suitable age and

discretion at the actual place of business of the person to be served and, within 20 days thereafter,

mailing a copy of the summons to the actual place of business in a specified manner" (Vid v

Kaufman, 282 AD2d 739, 739-740 [2d Dept 2001]). Pursuant to CPLR 308 (6), --actual place of

business" includes any location that the defendant, through regular solicitation or advertisement,

has held out as its place of business (id. at 740). It is undisputed that the address where Zhang was

served is both Qi's residence as well as the official address for Harmonia. Plaintiff fails to dispute

that Zhang is not present at the subject address with any regularity. Plaintiffs proof is also

insufficient to demonstrate that Zhang, as CFO of Harmonia, held out the subject address as his

actual place of business within the meaning of CPLR 308 [6]. Rather, plaintiffs proof only

demonstrates that Harmonia's business address is 161 West 61st Street and that Zhang is the CFO

of Harmonia. Thus, Zhang established that he was not properly served. Accordingly, the court

lacks jurisdiction over Zhang and the F AC must be dismissed as against him. This determination

is without prejudice to plaintiff seeking relief under CPLR 306-b.

[* 8] 8 of 9 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 517286/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Hannonia Defendants· motion to dismiss the FAC (MS 6) is

granted to the extent that plaintiffs claims for unjust enrichment. fraudulent concealment,

negligence, gross negligence, willful misconduct, intentional interference with contractual

relations and negligent interference with contractual relations are dismissed as against them. The

motion is otherwise denied. Zhang's motion to dismiss the complaint as against him for lack of

personal jurisdiction (MS 7) is granted. Plaintiffs FAC is dismissed as against him.

ENTER:

Honorab@enald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court

HON. REGINALD A. BODDIE J.S.C.

9 of 9 [* 9]