{"id":"court_ctb_474_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":474,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | |--------------------------------|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n|                                |\n\n| In re:                              | Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM)                                                      |\n|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                        | Chapter 11                                                                      |\n| Debtor.                             |                                                                                 |\n| LOGAN CHENG f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng,    | Adv. Case No.                                                                   |\n| Plaintiff,                          |                                                                                 |\n| v.<br>HO WAN KWOK a/k/a Wengui Guo, | COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO<br>DISCHARGEABILITY PURSUANT TO<br>11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(6) |\n| Defendant.                          |                                                                                 |\n\nPlaintiff-Creditor Logan Cheng f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng (\"Plaintiff\"), by and through his attorneys, Randazza Legal Group, PLLC, brings the following Complaint objecting to discharge of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) against Defendant-Debtor Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo (\"Defendant\") and, in support of his Complaint, alleges and states as follows:\n\n#### **THE PARTIES**\n\n- 1. Plaintiff-Creditor Logan Cheng f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng is a citizen of the State of California.\n- 2. Defendant-Debtor Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo (\"Debtor\", \"Kwok\", or \"Guo\") is an individual who purports to live in Fairfield County, Connecticut, but at all relevant times was, upon information and belief, a foreign national and a resident of the State of New York, residing at 781 Fifth Avenue, Apartment 1801, New York, NY 10022.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n3. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and 11 U.S.C. § 523. The claims for relief alleged in this complaint rise under Title 11 of the United States Code and are related to a case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"). The pending bankruptcy case to which the claims for relief alleged in this Complaint are related to In re Ho Wan Kwok, Bk Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Kwok Case\").\n\n- 4. The determination of dischargeability is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n- 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409, venue is proper in the District of Connecticut, because the Kwok Case is pending in this district and division.\n- 6. Defendant Ho Wan Kwok is a debtor in the Kwok Case.\n\n### **FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS**\n\n- 7. On August 9, 2018, Guo filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada against Mr. Cheng for (1) defamation, (2) defamation *per se*, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, Case No. A-18-779172-C (the \"Frivolous Lawsuit\").\n- 8. Guo amended his complaint twice, with the operative Second Amended Complaint being filed on April 18, 2019. Guo's Second Amended Complaint brought the same claims as his first Complaint. (*See* Second Amended Complaint in Frivolous Lawsuit, attached as **Exhibit 1**.)\n- 9. The allegations in the Frivolous Lawsuit were based on several statements Mr. Cheng, a Chinese pro-democracy activist, made on Twitter criticizing Mr. Guo's reputation of being a Chinese dissident as unearned and stating that Mr. Guo had in fact undermined the political movement he claimed to support.\n- 10. On June 14, 2019, Mr. Cheng filed his Anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Dismiss Under NRS 41.660 (the \"Anti-SLAPP Motion\") as to all of Debtor's claims. (*See* Anti-SLAPP Motion, attached as **Exhibit 2**.)\n- 11. On February 3, 2020, Mr. Cheng filed a Notice of Entry of Order giving notice that the district court granted Mr. Cheng's Anti-SLAPP Motion, dismissing all of Mr. Guo's claims against Creditor with prejudice under NRS 41.660. (*See* Anti-SLAPP Order, attached as **Exhibit 3**.)\n- 12. On July 22, 2020, Creditor had filed a suit against Debtor, who had been using the alias \"Wengui Guo\", in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05678 (hereinafter \"SDNY Case\").\n- 13. The said SDNY Case assert claims for 1) Anti-SLAPP Action Pursuant to NRS 41.670(1)(c); 2) Malicious Prosecution; and 3) Action on Foreign Judgment. Claim 3 was dismissed by stipulation on March 24, 2021, and Claim 2 was dismissed by stipulation on November 12, 2021.\n- 14. Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 on February 15, 2022.\n\n#### **COUNT ONE**\n\n# **FOR DETERMINATION OF NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(6) ARISING FROM N.R.S. 41.670(1)(c)**\n\n- 15. Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.\n- 16. The elements of a claim under NRS 41.670(1)(c) are simple. They are: (1) did the plaintiff file a Special Motion to Dismiss under NRS 41.660 in a prior action?; and (2) did the court in that action grant the Special Motion to Dismiss? If the answer to both questions is \"yes,\" then liability under NRS 41.670(1)(c) is conclusively established.\n- 17. Mr. Cheng filed a Special Motion to Dismiss under NRS 41.660 in the Frivolous Lawsuit. (*See* **Exhibit 2**.)\n- 18. The district court in the Frivolous Lawsuit granted Mr. Cheng's Special Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all of the claims against Mr. Cheng in the Frivolous Lawsuit with prejudice. (*See* **Exhibit 3**.)\n- 19. Mr. Cheng suffered damages as a result of Guo's filing and maintaining the Frivolous Lawsuit, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs in defending himself from the Frivolous Lawsuit.\n- 20. Additionally, due to Guo's unwillingness to pay amounts awarded to Mr. Cheng under the Anti-SLAPP statute, he had to incur additional costs and attorneys' fees.\n- 21. Guo is liable for these damages, as he was primarily responsible for the decision to file and maintain the Frivolous Lawsuit.\n- 22. As set forth above, the Frivolous Lawsuit was filed by Defendant against Plaintiff based on his alleged exercise of free speech rights in connection with a matter of public concern without probable cause, constituting a SLAPP suit under N.R.S. 41.660.\n- 23. Having filed a SLAPP suit, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages pursuant to NRS 41.670(1)(c).\n- 24. Guo's filing and maintenance of the Frivolous Lawsuit in violation of the Nevada anti-SLAPP law was willful.\n- 25. Guo's filing and maintenance of the Frivolous Lawsuit in violation of the Nevada anti-SLAPP law was malicious.\n- 26. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered damages not presently ascertained, but believed to be at least \\$5,000,000.\n- 27. In view of the foregoing, Plaintiff therefore seeks an order under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) determining that (1) Plaintiff is entitled to actual, presumed, punitive, and other damages in an amount to be specifically determined at trial; and (2) that said liability is non-dischargeable.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:\n\n- 1. For actual, presumed, and punitive damages in an amount to be specifically determined at trial; and\n- 2. For costs, disbursements, fees, and interest as authorized by state and Federal Law and Rules;\n- 3. For a decree that all debts determined to be owing by Defendant to Plaintiff which are the subject of this action are deemed and adjudicated to be non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6); and\n- 4. For such other and additional remedies as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\n#### 22-50073\n\nDated: June 20, 2022. Respectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Jay M. Wolman\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nJay M. Wolman – ct29129 of Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 P: 702-420-2001 F: 305-437-7662 ecf@randazza.com\n\n*Counsel for Plaintiff-Creditor Logan Cheng*","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\n\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\nIn re:（案由：）　Case No. 22-50073\n(JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　Chapter 11（第11章）\nDebtor.（债务人。）\nLOGAN CHENG f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng（成水炎，曾用名成水炎），　Adv. Case No.（民事对抗诉讼案号：）\nPlaintiff（原告），\nv.（诉）\nHO WAN KWOK a/k/a Wengui Guo（郭文贵，又名郭文贵），　COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGEABILITY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(6)（根据《美国法典》第11编第523(a)(6)条反对免责之起诉状）\nDefendant.（被告。）\n\n原告兼债权人 Logan Cheng（成水炎），曾用名 Shuiyan Cheng（下称“原告”），由其代理律师 Randazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团有限责任专业合伙）代表，特此针对被告兼债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名 Wengui Guo（下称“被告”），根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 提起以下反对债务免责的起诉状，并为支持其起诉状，主张并陈述如下：\n\nTHE PARTIES（当事人）\n\n- 1. 原告兼债权人成水炎（曾用名成水炎）为加利福尼亚州公民。\n\n- 2. 被告兼债务人郭文贵（又名郭文贵）（下称“债务人”、“郭”或“郭”）为个人，声称居住于康涅狄格州费尔菲尔德县，但在所有相关时间，据信并据所知，系一名外国国民且为纽约州居民，居住于 781 Fifth Avenue, Apartment 1801, New York, NY 10022。\n\nJURISDICTION AND VENUE（管辖权与审理地）\n\n3. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 157 和 11 U.S.C. § 523，本法院对本案具有管辖权。本起诉状中所主张的救济请求产生于《美国法典》第11编，并与目前在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）（下称“破产法院”）待决的一起案件相关。本起诉状中所主张的救济请求所涉及的待决破产案为 In re Ho Wan Kwok, Bk Case No. 22-50073（下称“郭案”）。\n\n- 4. 免责资格的判定根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 属于核心程序。\n\n- 5. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1409，康涅狄格区为适当审理地，因为郭案正在本司法区及分院待决。\n\n- 6. 被告郭文贵为郭案中的债务人。\n\nFACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS（适用于所有主张的共同事实）\n\n- 7. 2018年8月9日，郭在 Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada（内华达州克拉克县第八司法区法院）对成先生提起诉讼，案由为：(1) 诽谤、(2) 本身诽谤（defamation per se）、以及 (3) 故意造成精神损害，案号为 A-18-779172-C（下称“滥诉”）。\n\n- 8. 郭曾两次修改其起诉状，其中具有法律效力的第二次修改后起诉状于 2019年4月18日 提交。郭的第二次修改后起诉状提出了与其第一份起诉状相同的主张。（见滥诉中的第二次修改后起诉状，作为附件 1 附后。）\n\n- 9. 滥诉中的指控基于中国民主活动人士成先生在 Twitter（推特）上发表的数条言论，这些言论批评郭先生所谓的中国异见人士声誉名不副实，并指出郭先生实际上破坏了他声称支持的政治运动。\n\n- 10. 2019年6月14日，成先生就债务人的所有诉讼请求，根据 NRS 41.660 提交了其反 SLAPP 特别驳回动议（下称“反 SLAPP 动议”）。（见反 SLAPP 动议，作为附件 2 附后。）\n\n- 11. 2020年2月3日，成先生提交了裁定录入通知，告知地区法院准许了成先生的反 SLAPP 动议，并根据 NRS 41.660 驳回了郭先生针对债权人的所有诉讼请求，且不得再次起诉（dismissing with prejudice）。（见反 SLAPP 裁定，作为附件 3 附后。）\n\n- 12. 2020年7月22日，债权人曾在 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）对一直使用化名“郭文贵”的债务人提起诉讼，案号为 1:20-cv-05678（以下称“纽约南区案”）。\n\n- 13. 上述纽约南区案主张的诉求为：1) 根据 NRS 41.670(1)(c) 提起的反 SLAPP 诉讼；2) 恶意起诉；以及 3) 基于外地判决的诉讼。诉求 3 于 2021年3月24日 经双方约定驳回，诉求 2 于 2021年11月12日 经双方约定驳回。\n\n- 14. 债务人于 2022年2月15日 根据第11章提交了自愿救济申请。\n\nCOUNT ONE\nFOR DETERMINATION OF NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(6) ARISING FROM N.R.S. 41.670(1)(c)（罪名项一：判定源于 N.R.S. 41.670(1)(c) 之债务根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(6) 不可免责）\n\n- 15. 前述各段均通过引用并入本项中。\n\n- 16. NRS 41.670(1)(c) 项下诉求的构成要件很简单，即：(1) 原告是否在先前的诉讼中根据 NRS 41.660 提交了特别驳回动议？以及 (2) 该诉讼中的法院是否准许了该特别驳回动议？如果两个问题的答案均为“是”，则 NRS 41.670(1)(c) 项下的法律责任即告确立。\n\n- 17. 成先生在滥诉中根据 NRS 41.660 提交了特别驳回动议。（见附件 2。）\n\n- 18. 审理滥诉的地区法院准许了成先生的特别驳回动议，并裁定驳回滥诉中针对成先生的所有诉求，且不得再次起诉。（见附件 3。）\n\n- 19. 成先生因郭提起并维持该滥诉而遭受损害，包括但不限于为应对该滥诉进行辩护所产生的律师费和开支。\n\n- 20. 此外，由于郭不愿支付根据反 SLAPP 成文法判给成先生的款项，成先生不得不承担额外的开支和律师费。\n\n- 21. 郭对这些损害承担赔偿责任，因为他是做出提起和维持该滥诉决定的主要责任人。\n\n- 22. 如上所述，被告对原告提起该滥诉，系基于原告就公共关切事项行使所谓言论自由权利的行为，且缺乏合理依据（without probable cause），构成了 N.R.S. 41.660 项下的 SLAPP 诉讼。\n\n- 23. 被告提起 SLAPP 诉讼后，应根据 NRS 41.670(1)(c) 对原告承担损害赔偿责任。\n\n- 24. 郭违反内华达州反 SLAPP 法律提起并维持滥诉的行为是故意的（willful）。\n\n- 25. 郭违反内华达州反 SLAPP 法律提起并维持滥诉的行为是恶意的（malicious）。\n\n- 26. 作为上述行为的直接和近因后果，原告遭受了目前尚未确定的损害，但据信至少为 \\$5,000,000。\n\n- 27. 鉴于上述情况，原告因此根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 寻求一项裁定，判定：(1) 原告有权获得实际损害赔偿金、推定损害赔偿金、惩罚性损害赔偿金及其他损害赔偿金，具体金额将在审判中具体确定；以及 (2) 上述责任属于不可免责之债务。\n\nPRAYER FOR RELIEF（判决请求）\n\n为此，原告请求法院作出针对被告的判决如下：\n\n- 1. 判令支付实际损害赔偿金、推定损害赔偿金和惩罚性损害赔偿金，具体金额将在审判中具体确定；\n\n- 2. 判令支付州和联邦法律及规则所授权的诉讼费用、垫付款项、规费和利息；\n\n- 3. 下达裁判令，判定并宣告被告应向原告支付的、构成本诉讼标的的所有被确定的债务，根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 均属于不可免责；以及\n\n- 4. 判令给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及额外救济。\n\n22-50073\n\n日期：2022年6月20日。谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Jay M. Wolman_______________\n\nJay M. Wolman – ct29129，所属律所 Randazza Legal Group, PLLC，地址：100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103，电话：702-420-2001，传真：305-437-7662，电子邮箱：ecf@randazza.com\n\n原告兼债权人 Logan Cheng（成水炎）之代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1205,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:48:15"}