ZUISE}CT l5 §ii 8:35 lN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NASH|NGTON D|ViSlON ONE YAN¥.U t.lU and Al HUA PAN, husband and wife, residing in King County, Washington; PENG Zl-iANG and ZHONG¥UAN PAN, husband and wife, residing in Ontario, Canada, No. 76576~1-| Respondents, GREAT OCEAN CAP|TAL HOLD|NG, LLC, a Washington limited liabiiity company; HU‘( Y|NG CHEN and XUE P|NG WANG, husband and wife, residing in Washington state; UNPUB¥_|SHED OP|N|ON l'-'|LED: October 15, 2018 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellants. ) l VERELLEN, J. - Great Ocean Capita| Holding, LLC cha|ienges the tfial courts jurisdiction and authority to enterjucigment on Ztongyuan Pan’s claim under the Washington State Securities Act, chapter 21.20 RCW (WSSA). Great Ocean fai!s to establish the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or either field or conflict preemption applies. Great Ocean aiso argues the triai court erred in granting summary judgment in Pan's favor but fails to estabtish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Great Ocean’s other challenges to the trial court’s orders striking Great No. 76576-?-|/2 Ocean’s answer and determining Pan was entitled to rescission of her investment are similarly without merit Therefore, we atfirm. E_A_QI§ Great Ocean is a United States Citizen and immigration Service designated regionai center for purposes of the EB-S immigrant investor Prograrn. Appeliants Huy Ying Chen and Xue Ping Wang, husband and wife, own a majority interest in Great Ocean. Respondents Yanlu Liu and Ai Hua Pan, husband and wife, own a minority interest. Yan|u Liu and Ai Hua pan are the parents of Zhongyuan Pan. Pan invested $519,500 in Great Ocean for the purpose of obtaining a visa through the EB-S Program. The EB-5 Program ai|ows foreign investors and their families to obtain residency in the United States. |n November 2015, Pan and her parents filed a lawsuit against Great Ocean for breach ot contract, fraudulent and negligent n"iisrepresentation1 violation of the WSSA, vioiation of the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, breach of fiduciary duty, and accounting1 The trial court entered orders granting partial summary judgment on Pan’s WSSA claim, striking Great Ocean's answer and affirmative defenses and entering findings of fact, conclusions ot iaw, and judgment on Pan’s WSSA claim The principal amount of judgment was $519,500 for Pan’s initiai investment 1 Respondents’ ciaims for breach of contract, fraud1 and viotation of the Consumer Protection Act were submitted for arbitration Following partial summaryjudgment on Pan’s WSSA ctaim, respondents voluntarily dismissed all other claims No. 76576-1-!/3 Great Ocean appeals ANALYS|S l. Jurisdiction Great Ocean contends the trial court lacked subject matterjurisdiction to render judgment in this case. We review whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction de novo.2 “‘A judgment entered by a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void.”’3 "As courts of general jurisdiction, superior courts have long had the ‘power to hear and determine ail matters, legal and equitabie, . . . except in so far as these powers have ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals