Sophie Shen v. Fasikl, Ltd. et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV434168 Toll Bros, Inc. v. Application for the sale of a dwelling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.750.) By Lefco Inc., a stipulation of the parties, the application is CONTINUED to February 23, California 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10. The stipulation and order filed Corporation September 3, 2026, will be the order of the court. Line 2 25CV477176 Maniam Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. Enterprises, LLC v. Isaac Barrera et al. Line 3 26CV486559 Eric Wiedemann Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. v. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al. Line 4 26CV489001 Sophie Shen v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Fasikl, Ltd. et al. Line 5 25CV467743 Ana Pace v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Crest Enterprises, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 6 25CV467743 Ana Pace v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Crest Enterprises, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 4 Case Name: Sophie Shen v. Fasikl Ltd. et al. Case No.: 26CV489001

Plaintiff Sophie Shen’s motion for preliminary injunction against Fasikl Ltd. and Fasikl Inc. (collectively, Fasikl). Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed.

Plaintiff filed this Uniform Voidable Transactions Act action against Weiping Xia (plaintiff’s brother) and entities including the Fasikl entities. The complaint alleges Weiping Xia made a series of fraudulent transfers to evade a judgment against him in an earlier action between the siblings. In the prior action, plaintiff sued her brother Weiping Xia for breach of fiduciary duty and other causes of action based on his refusal to pay her for her share of a company she invested in that he later sold. (Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. 19CV360975.)

A jury awarded plaintiff $21 million against Weiping Xia in 2022. (Exh. 2 to 7/24/26 Shen dec.) The court takes judicial notice of that court filing. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) The complaint in this action prays for a constructive trust over any fraudulently transferred assets. Plaintiff also has a motion pending to amend the complaint to add a cause of action seeking a declaration that defendant Xstone Management Limited acquired Fasikl shares with assets derived from the company Weiping Xia sold.

The instant motion seeks a preliminary injunction that would enjoin Fasikl from transferring, redeeming, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of the shares of Fasikl Ltd. owned by defendant Xstone Management Limited. It is supported by a lengthy declaration by plaintiff that details the efforts plaintiff has made to trace Weiping Xia’s assets. The declaration has hundreds of pages of financial records attached. As relevant to this motion, plaintiff declares that $700,000 traceable to Weiping Xia’s assets was transferred to defendant Xstone Management Limited in 2025. (7/24/26 Shen dec., ¶¶ 34-38.)

Xstone then transferred $700,000 to purchase “905,732 Series A+ Preferred Shares” in Fasikl. (Id. ¶¶ 38-39.) Those shares are currently frozen by agreement of the parties, which is set to expire on September 26, 2026. (Id. ¶ 41-42.) Plaintiff did not address a bond requirement in her moving papers.

“In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678.) “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Ibid.)

Under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, “ ‘a transfer of assets made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer, if the debtor made the transfer (1) with an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor, or (2) without receiving reasonably equivalent value in return, and either (a) was engaged in or about to engage in a business or transaction for which the debtor's assets were unreasonably small, or (b) intended to, or reasonably believed, or reasonably should have believed, that he or she would incur debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due.’ ” (Hasso v. Hapke (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 107, 121-122.)

Plaintiff’s declaration and supporting evidence are adequate to show a likelihood of prevailing on UVTA cause of action as to defendant Weiping Xia. The shares at issue are the result of those transfers. The evidence also supports a likelihood of prevailing on the declaratory relief cause of action, though the court notes that cause of action is not in the presently operative complaint. The financial maneuvering detailed in plaintiff’s declaration also supports a finding of irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Fasikl did not oppose, and the court does not find any irreparable harm in an order enjoining transfer of the stock at issue.

The court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as follows: Fasikl Ltd. and Fasikl Inc. (and any of their agents) are enjoined from transferring, redeeming, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of the 905,732 Series A+ Preferred Shares of Fasikl Ltd. owned by defendant Xstone Management Limited. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect until entry of judgment or further order of this court. Plaintiff shall post a bond of $50,000 no later than October 8, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 529.)

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

9