Jeff Quan, Ka Yan Lee, Harmony Quan, Mega Time II, LLC, Melody Quan Gallagher, and Lawrence Lee v. Wendy Quan, Brenda Ung, Ping Chu, Andy Chen, Element Plastics MFG. Inc.; Capital Plastics Int'l, Inc., Cash 10702 Investment LLC, Capital Plastics Int'l, Inc.; Element Plastics MFG, LLC Appeal from 240th District Court of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 26, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00362-CV ——————————— JEFF QUAN, KA YAN LEE, HARMONY QUAN, MEGA TIME II, LLC, MELODY QUAN GALLAGHER, LAWRENCE LEE, CAPITAL PLASTICS INT’L, INC., AND ELEMENT PLASTICS MFG., LLC, Appellants V. WENDY QUAN AND BRENDA UNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF CAPITAL PLASTICS INT’L, INC., ELEMENT PLASTICS MFG., LLC, AND CASH 10702 INVESTMENT LLC, AND PING CHU AND ANDY CHEN, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF CAPITAL PLASTICS INT’L, INC., ELEMENT PLASTICS MFG., LLC, AND CASH 10702 INVESTMENT LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20-DCV-271902 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Jeff Quan, Ka Yan Lee, Harmony Quan, Mega Time II, LLC, Melody Quan Gallagher, and Lawrence Lee, filed a notice of appeal from five interlocutory orders of the trial court, including: (1) a June 4, 2021 “Temporary Injunction Order,” (2) a June 16, 2021 “First Amended Temporary Injunction Order,” (3) a June 28, 2021 “Third Amended Order Granting Appointment of a Rehabilitative Receiver of Cash 10702 Investment, LLC,” (4) a June 28, 2021 “Fourth Amended Order Granting Appointment of a Rehabilitative Receiver of Capital Plastics Int’l, Inc. and Element Plastics MFG., LLC,” and (5) a June 28, 2021 “First Amended Order Denying [Appellants’] Motion to Reconsider.” Appellants, Capital Plastics Int’l, Inc. and Element Plastics Mfg., LLC, separately filed a notice of appeal from the same interlocutory orders. Collectively, appellants have filed an “Agreed Motion to Dismiss,” representing that “[a]ll the parties to this interlocutory appeal and to the underlying trial court action reached a settlement,” which had the effect of “dissolv[ing] all of the interlocutory orders that were being appealed in this case.” Accordingly, “there are no longer any issues in controversy between the parties to this appeal,” and appellants seek dismissal of the appeal. No other party has filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Further, appellants’ motion includes a certificate of 2 conference representing that appellees do not oppose the relief requested in appellants’ motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Farris. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
