{"id":"court_sdny_474_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":474,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 474","summary_zh":"可免责债权投诉 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，美国破产法院 Connecticut 区 Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 ECF #474（2022年6月立案）。Logan Cheng 根据《破产法》第 523(a)(6) 条提出投诉，主张 Guo 对其提起的诉讼属恶意诉讼，声称 Guo 于 2018 年在内华达州法院提起虚假诉讼，法院已根据反 SLAPP 法案予以驳回，要求宣布相关债务不可免责。","summary_en":"Complaint Objecting to Dischargeability —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073, ECF #474 (filed June 2022). Logan Cheng files a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) alleging that Guo filed a frivolous lawsuit against him in Nevada state court in 2018, which was dismissed under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, and seeking a determination that the resulting judgment debt is non-dischargeable.","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）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭浩云），第 11 章\n债务人。\nLOGAN CHENG f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng（成水炎，曾用名成水炎），对抗诉讼案号：\n原告，\n诉\nHO WAN KWOK a/k/a Wengui Guo（郭浩云，又名郭文贵），根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 提出异议主张债务不可免责的起诉书\n被告。\n\n原告兼债权人 Logan Cheng f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng（成水炎，曾用名成水炎，以下简称“原告”）通过其代理律师事务所 Randazza Legal Group, PLLC，就债务免除事宜根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 对被告兼债务人 Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo（郭浩云，又名郭文贵，以下简称“被告”）提起如下异议起诉书，并为支持其起诉书指控及陈述如下：\n\n当事人\n\n1. 原告兼债权人 Logan Cheng f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng 是加利福尼亚州公民。\n\n2. 被告兼债务人 Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo（以下简称“债务人”、“郭浩云”或“郭文贵”）为自然人，自称居住于康涅狄格州费尔菲尔德县，但在所有相关时间内，据知悉及确信，其为外国公民且为纽约州居民，居住于 781 Fifth Avenue, Apartment 1801, New York, NY 10022。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n3. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. § 157 及 11 U.S.C. § 523 对本案具有管辖权。本起诉书中所主张的救济请求产生自《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，以下简称“破产法院”）审理中的案件相关。本起诉书中所主张的救济请求所涉及的待决破产案件为 In re Ho Wan Kwok，破产案号 22-50073（以下简称“郭案”）。\n\n4. 债务是否可免责的认定属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 规定的核心诉讼程序。\n\n5. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1409，审判地在康涅狄格区是适当的，因为郭案正在本区及本分院审理中。\n\n6. 被告郭浩云为郭案中的债务人。\n\n适用于所有主张的共同事实\n\n7. 2018年8月9日，郭文贵在 Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada（内华达州克拉克县第八司法区法院）对成水炎先生提起诉讼，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（以下简称“无理滥诉”）。\n\n8. 郭文贵对其起诉书进行了两次修改，作为诉讼依据的《第二次修改后起诉书》于2019年4月18日提交。郭文贵的《第二次修改后起诉书》提出了与其第一份起诉书相同的主张。（见附于附件 1 的无理滥诉案《第二次修改后起诉书》。）\n\n9. 该无理滥诉中的指控基于成先生（一名中国民运人士）在 Twitter 上发表的数条言论，这些言论批评郭先生作为中国持不同政见者的名声是名不副实的，并指出郭先生实际上破坏了他声称支持的政治运动。\n\n10. 2019年6月14日，成先生就债务人的所有主张提交了其《根据 NRS 41.660 提出的反反公共参与策略特别驳回动议》（以下简称“反 SLAPP 动议”）。（见附于附件 2 的反 SLAPP 动议。）\n\n11. 2020年2月3日，成先生提交了一份《裁定录入通知》，通知该区法院已批准成先生的反 SLAPP 动议，并根据 NRS 41.660 带有偏见地（永久）驳回了郭先生针对债权人的所有主张。（见附于附件 3 的反 SLAPP 裁定。）\n\n12. 2020年7月22日，债权人在 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（以下简称“纽约南区案”）。\n\n13. 上述纽约南区案提出的诉讼请求包括：1) 根据 NRS 41.670(1)(c) 提起反 SLAPP 诉讼；2) 恶意起诉；以及 3) 外地判决执行之诉。诉讼请求 3 于2021年3月24日经协议驳回，诉讼请求 2 于2021年11月12日经协议驳回。\n\n14. 债务人于2022年2月15日根据第 11 章自愿提交了破产申请。\n\n第一项主张\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 主张认定源自 NRS 41.670(1)(c) 的债务不可免责\n\n15. 前述各段内容均通过援引纳入本项主张。\n\n16. NRS 41.670(1)(c) 项下主张的构成要件很简单。它们是：(1) 原告是否在前案中根据 NRS 41.660 提交了特别驳回动议？；以及 (2) 该案法院是否批准了该特别驳回动议？如果对两个问题的回答均为“是”，则 NRS 41.670(1)(c) 项下的法律责任即告确立。\n\n17. 成先生在前述无理滥诉中提交了根据 NRS 41.660 提出的特别驳回动议。（见附件 2。）\n\n18. 该无理滥诉中的区法院批准了成先生的特别驳回动议，并带有偏见地驳回了在该无理滥诉中针对成先生的所有主张。（见附件 3。）\n\n19. 由于郭文贵提起并维持该无理滥诉，成先生遭受了损失，包括但不限于为应对该无理滥诉而进行抗辩所支出的律师费及诉讼费用。\n\n20. 此外，由于郭文贵不愿支付根据反 SLAPP 法规裁定赔偿给成先生的款项，成先生不得不承担额外的费用和律师费。\n\n21. 郭文贵对这些损害承担责任，因为他是决定提起并维持该无理滥诉的主要责任人。\n\n22. 如上所述，被告针对原告提起该无理滥诉，系基于原告就公共利益事项行使其言论自由权利而在缺乏合理依据的情况下提起的，构成了 NRS 41.660 项下的 SLAPP 诉讼。\n\n23. 被告提起 SLAPP 诉讼后，应当根据 NRS 41.670(1)(c) 对原告的损害承担赔偿责任。\n\n24. 郭文贵违反内华达州反 SLAPP 法律提起并维持该无理滥诉的行为是故意的。\n\n25. 郭文贵违反内华达州反 SLAPP 法律提起并维持该无理滥诉的行为是具有恶意的。\n\n26. 作为前述行为的直接且近因后果，原告遭受了目前尚未完全确定、但确信至少为 $5,000,000 的损失。\n\n27. 鉴于前述情况，原告因此请求法院根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 作出裁定：(1) 原告有权获得实际损害赔偿、推定损害赔偿、惩罚性赔偿及其他赔偿，具体金额在审判时明确确定；以及 (2) 上述法律责任属于不可免除的债务。\n\n请求救济事项\n\n为此，原告请求针对被告作出如下判决：\n\n1. 判令赔偿实际损失、推定损失和惩罚性损害赔偿金，具体数额由审判明确确定；以及\n\n2. 判令支付州和联邦法律及规则所允许的诉讼费用、杂费开支、律师费和利息；\n\n3. 判令确认并裁定，确定由被告所欠原告的、构成纳于本诉标的之所有债务，根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 均视为且判定为不可免责债务；以及\n\n4. 判令给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及附加救济。\n\n22-50073\n\n日期：2022年6月20日。谨此提交，\n\n/签名/ Jay M. Wolman_______________\n\nJay M. Wolman – ct29129，来自 Randazza Legal Group, PLLC\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：702-420-2001 传真：305-437-7662\n电子送达邮箱：ecf@randazza.com\n\n原告兼债权人 Logan Cheng 代理律师","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1205,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:25:42"}