Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 11
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`SHAOXUAN ZHU d/b/a SHAO STUDIO
`7613 Arnet Lane
`Bethesda, MD 20817
`
`
`
`v.
`
`UC TIME TRUSTWALL, LLC
`8505 Howell Road
`Bethesda, MD 20817
`SERVE ON: Maryland Resident Agent
`Xiaofang Zhang
`8505 Howell Road
`Bethesda, MD 20817
`
`and
`
`AJALLI ARCHITECTS PLLC
`7641 Leesburg Pike, FL 2
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`SERVE ON: Virginia Resident Agent
`Ali Ajalli
`1450 Kirby Road
`McLean, VA 22101
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff Shaoxuan Zhu d/b/a Shao Studio, by undersigned counsel, and
`
`
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, files this Complaint against Defendant UC Time Trustwall, LLC and
`
`Ajalli Architects PLLC (collectively “Defendants”), stating as follows.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`SHAOXUAN ZHU d/b/a SHAO STUDIO
`7613 Arnet Lane
`Bethesda, MD 20817
`
`
`
`v.
`
`UC TIME TRUSTWALL, LLC
`8505 Howell Road
`Bethesda, MD 20817
`SERVE ON: Maryland Resident Agent
`Xiaofang Zhang
`8505 Howell Road
`Bethesda, MD 20817
`
`and
`
`AJALLI ARCHITECTS PLLC
`7641 Leesburg Pike, FL 2
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`SERVE ON: Virginia Resident Agent
`Ali Ajalli
`1450 Kirby Road
`McLean, VA 22101
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff Shaoxuan Zhu d/b/a Shao Studio, by undersigned counsel, and
`
`
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, files this Complaint against Defendant UC Time Trustwall, LLC and
`
`Ajalli Architects PLLC (collectively “Defendants”), stating as follows.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 11
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Shaoxuan Zhu is an individual who resides at 7613 Arnet Lane, Bethesda,
`
`Maryland and regularly performs single-family residential architectural design services in the State
`
`of Maryland under the name Shao Studio (“Shao Studio” or “Plaintiff”).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Defendant UC Time Trustwall, LLC (“Owner”) is a corporation registered under
`
`the laws of the State of Maryland with its principal place of business located at 8505 Howell Road
`
`Bethesda, MD 20817. Upon information and belief, Zhang Qiao is the operating member of UC
`
`Time Trustwall, LLC and resides at 8505 Howell Road Bethesda, MD 20817.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Ajalli Architects, PLLC (“Ajalli”) is a professional limited liability
`
`company registered under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal place of
`
`business located at 7641 Leesburg Pike, Floor 2, Falls Church, VA 22043. Ajalli regularly
`
`performs architectural design services in the State of Maryland.
`
`VENUE AND JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`4.
`
`This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq. because the action arises under the Copyright
`
`Act. § 13-423.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-921.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Owner because, inter alia, it
`
`carries out regular business within the State of Maryland.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Ajalli because, inter alia, it carries
`
`out regular business with the State of Maryland.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 3 of 11
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`9.
`
`On or about January 26, 2020, Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Owner
`
`(“Design Contract”) pursuant to which Plaintiff provided architectural design services for
`
`Defendant’s new single-family residence located at 4233 East West Highway in Bethesda,
`
`Maryland (“the Project”).
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to the Design Contract, Plaintiff’s scope of services for the Project
`
`included the preparation of “Design Documents for Owner’s approval”, including “floor plans and
`
`elevations” based “on the project information furnished by the Owner,” and the preparation of
`
`“detailed Construction Documents for obtaining bids from contractors, for obtaining a building
`
`permit, and for use by the contractor to construct the Project”, including “a Site Plan, General
`
`Notes, a Foundation Plan, Floor/Framing Plans, Building Elevations, Sections and Specifications”
`
`based “on the Owner’s approval of the Design Documents” (“Design Documents”). The Design
`
`Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant to the Design Contract, the Owner agreed to pay Plaintiff a lump sum of
`
`$19,000. Exhibit A.
`
`12.
`
`As done for the Project in this case, Plaintiff routinely prepares design drawings for
`
`residential projects based on unique lot shape, lot conditions, and particular project criteria
`
`received from its clients and often does so by hand without assistance from a computer. In February
`
`and March 2020, Plaintiff provided the Owner with three evolutionary versions of the Design
`
`Documents for the Owner’s review and input.
`
`13.
`
`The Owner’s review and comment on the Design Documents resulted in significant
`
`changes, which required Plaintiff to resketch all floor plans and elevations, perform additional
`
`zoning research, and incorporate a Chinese kitchen, all of which required a unique design. See
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 4 of 11
`
`copies of Plaintiff’s sketches prepared uniquely by hand without computer assistance attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`14.
`
`At various times between February and May 2020, Plaintiff provided the Owner
`
`with substantially similar earlier versions of the Design Documents through iterative sketches and
`
`CAD drawings. On May 8, 2020, the Owner told Plaintiff that no further changes to the Design
`
`Documents would be requested.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff met with the Owner on May 17, 2020 to provide the Owner with a
`
`complete paper copy of the final Design Documents for approval in advance of submitting them
`
`for permit, and the invoice for the completed design phase of the Project. In response, the Owner
`
`told Plaintiff that payment would be made the following day.
`
`16.
`
`In the days following, the Owner requested additional changes to the Design
`
`Documents, in response to which Plaintiff informed the Owner that additional changes to the final
`
`Design Documents would have to be incorporated in the next phase of construction documentation
`
`or would otherwise require an amendment to the Design Contract.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`On May 26, 2020, the Owner terminated the Design Contract.
`
`On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff registered with the United States Copyright Office the
`
`Design Documents developed for the Project in compliance with all aspects with the copyright
`
`registration and deposit requirements of the Federal Copyright Act of 1976 (the “Registration”) as
`
`reflected by the Copyright Office’s September 02, 2020 acceptance (“Copyrighted Documents”).
`
`A copy of the Registration is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff owns the original designs depicted on the Copyrighted Documents, all
`
`exclusive copyrights therein (including for all earlier unpublished versions) and is entitled to
`
`copyright protection.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 5 of 11
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`The Owner failed to pay Plaintiff all amounts due under the Design Contract.
`
`The total balance due to Plaintiff under the Design Contract is $7,200.
`
`After terminating the Design Contract, the Owner hired Ajalli to perform
`
`architectural design services for the Project in replacement of Plaintiff. See copy of photograph
`
`taken at the Property by Plaintiff, which identifies Ajalli as design builder for the Project and is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`23.
`
`The Owner gave Ajalli a copy or copies of the Copyrighted Documents (including
`
`but not limited to earlier unpublished substantially similar iterations of the Copyrighted
`
`Documents) for Ajalli’s use in obtaining the building permit for the Property. A true and correct
`
`copy of the Copyrighted Documents are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`24.
`
`On behalf of the Owner, Ajalli submitted the Copyrighted Documents to the
`
`Authority Having Jurisdiction on drawing sheets signed and sealed by Ajalli with Plaintiff’s
`
`name/tradename removed.
`
`25.
`
`This is evidenced by the April 15, 2022 permit drawings submitted by Ajalli (a
`
`copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F), which are substantially similar to the Copyrighted
`
`Documents, including but not limited to the following design features, all of which reflect
`
`Plaintiff’s unique design ideas and concepts that are not standard design features found in
`
`residential home construction:
`
`
`
`a.
`
`A two-car garage located at the back of the house, and the elevation of the building
`
`ground level to an unusual height to accommodate the unique garage placement.
`
`b.
`
`A two-level open deck at the back of the building.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`c.
`
`An enclosed Chinese Kitchen layout, which requires a dishdryer instead of a
`
`dishwasher, a refrigerator that is located outside the kitchen, and a unique ventilation system, in
`
`addition to a traditional open kitchen.
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Exterior façade design details, including an intentional two-foot set-back from the
`
`main building to create a symmetrical façade, and projecting Juliet balconies along the first floor.
`
`e.
`
`A unique overall floor plan layout to accommodate the rigid alignment of the
`
`outside windows.
`
`See copy of Plaintiff’s hand-sketch of the building exterior diagram, attached hereto as Exhibit G.
`
`26.
`
`Ajalli and the Owner continue using the Copyrighted Documents for the
`
`construction of the Project as evidenced by the photograph attached hereto as Exhibit H showing
`
`construction of the Project, which cannot occur without the Owner’s and/or Ajalli’s copying and
`
`distribution of the Copyright Documents to contractors for purposes of obtaining bids and for
`
`construction of the Project.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants have distributed, used, altered, prepared derivative works from and
`
`continue to use, one or more unauthorized copies of the Copyrighted Documents (or substantially
`
`similar versions) in connection with the Project without Plaintiff’s permission or consent, without
`
`a license and without payment to Plaintiff in full.
`
`COUNT I – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`(UC Time Trustwall, LLC)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth above into this
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Count, as if each was set forth fully herein.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`The Copyright Act grants authors a limited monopoly and opportunity to profit
`
`from the dissemination of their original works of authorship.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`30
`
`Copyright owners have the exclusive right to – or to license to others to – reproduce,
`
`perform publicly, display publicly, prepare derivative works of, and distribute copies of
`
`copyrighted work. As used herein the terms “copy,” “copied,” or “copying” are used as a shorthand
`
`for the infringement of any of Plaintiff’s five exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Copyright infringement is a strict liability statutory tort in which a violation does
`
`not require a culpable state of mind. Brammer v. Violent Hues Prods., LLC, 922 F.3d 255, 265
`
`(4th Cir. 2019). Thus, “innocent infringers” can be liable for copyright infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff holds a registered copyright for the Copyrighted Documents.
`
`33.
`
`The Owner unlawfully and willfully copied Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Documents in
`
`violation of Plaintiff’s copyright and transmitted the Copyrighted Documents (or substantially
`
`similar versions thereof) to Ajalli for Ajalli’s use, alteration and submission to the Authority
`
`Having Jurisdiction for permit purposes on the Owner’s behalf for the Project.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`The Owner knew that it had not paid Plaintiff for its use or copying of the
`
`Copyrighted Documents. Therefore, the Owner’s infringement was willful.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff has lost substantial revenue from the Owner’s unlawful and willful
`
`copying and use of the Copyrighted Documents. Plaintiff has been damaged by the Owner’s
`
`infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright and is entitled to elect between common law or statutory
`
`damages for such infringement.
`
`COUNT II – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`(Ajalli Architects)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth above into this
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Count, as if each was set forth fully herein.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff holds a registered copyright for the Copyrighted Documents.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`38. Ajalli unlawfully obtained a copy or copies of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Documents
`
`(or substantially similar earlier versions), altered the Copyrighted Documents by removing
`
`Plaintiff’s copyright management information and replacing it with Ajalli’s signature and seal,
`
`and/or prepared a derivative work from the Copyrighted Documents, and transmitted them to the
`
`Authority Having Jurisdiction in violation of Plaintiff’s copyright.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff has lost substantial revenue from Ajalli’s unlawful copying, alteration, use
`
`and transmission of the Copyrighted Documents. Plaintiff has been damaged by Ajalli’s
`
`infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright and is entitled to elect between common law or statutory
`
`damages for such infringement.
`
`COUNT III – BREACH OF CONTRACT
`(UC Time Trustwall, LLC)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth above into this
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Count, as if each was set forth fully herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`A valid contract exists between Plaintiff and the Owner.
`
`The Owner breached the Design Contract by, inter alia, failing and refusing to pay
`
`Plaintiff amounts due to Plaintiff for services rendered for the Project.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff has made demands on the Owner and has performed all conditions
`
`precedent to payment.
`
`
`
`44. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s repeated demands, the Owner still owes Plaintiff
`
`$7,200 for services performed on the Project.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`As a result of the Owner’s breach of the Design Contract, Plaintiff has been
`
`damaged in an amount not less than $7,200.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 9 of 11
`
`COUNT IV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`(UC Time Trustwall, LLC)
`
`If this Court determines that no binding contract governs this claim, Plaintiff pleads in the
`
`
`
`
`alternative as follows.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth above into this
`
`Count, as if each was set forth fully herein.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff provided architectural design services for the Owner’s new single-family
`
`residence located at 4233 East West Highway in Bethesda, Maryland (“the Project”).
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff rendered valuable services to the Owner for the Project in the form of the
`
`Copyrighted Documents with the intention of receiving from the Owner a fee for its services
`
`rendered.
`
`49.
`
`The Owner authorized Plaintiff to perform the services rendered to the Owner and
`
`accepted these services, receiving the benefit of said services, and knew or had reason to know
`
`that Plaintiff expected to be paid for its services.
`
`50.
`
`The Owner has been unjustly enriched in the amount of $7,200.00.
`
`COUNT V – QUANTUM MERUIT
`(UC Time Trustwall, LLC)
`
`If this Court determines that no binding contract governs this claim, Plaintiff pleads in the
`
`
`
`alternative as follows.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth above into this
`
`Count, as if each was set forth fully herein.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff provided architectural design services for the Owner’s new single-family
`
`residence located at 4233 East West Highway in Bethesda, Maryland (“the Project”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 10 of 11
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff rendered valuable services to the Owner for the Project in the form of the
`
`Copyrighted Documents with the intention of receiving from the Owner a fee for its services
`
`rendered.
`
`54.
`
`The Owner authorized and directed Plaintiff to perform the services rendered to the
`
`Owner and accepted these services.
`
`55.
`
`The value of the benefit conferred by Plaintiff on the Owner $7,200.00.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Shaoxuan Zhu d/b/a Shao Studio respectfully requests that this
`
`
`
`
`
`Court enter an order of judgment in favor of Plaintiff as follows:
`
`(A) Judgment against Defendant UC Time Trustwall, LLC on Counts I, III, IV and V for
`
`(i) compensatory damages in the amount of $7,200.00, plus
`
`(ii) statutory or common law copyright damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus
`
`(iii) the costs of this action, plus
`
`(iv) post-judgment interest at the legal rate, from the date of judgment until all amounts
`
`due under the judgment are paid in full, and
`
`(v) attorneys’ fees, and
`
`(B) Judgment against Defendant Ajalli Architects PLLC on Count II for
`
`(i) statutory or common law copyright damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus
`
`(ii) the costs of this action, and
`
`(iii) attorneys’ fees, and
`
`(C) Any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 8:23-cv-01319-PX Document 1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 18, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Dalene A. Radcliffe
`Paul E. Knupp, III (Fed. Bar #1801090002)
`Dalene A. Radcliffe (Fed. Bar #18965)
`LEE/SHOEMAKER PLLC
`1400 Eye Street, NW, Suite 200
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 971-9400
`pek@leeshoemaker.com
`dar@leeshoemaker.com
`Counsel for Plaintiff Shaoxuan Zhu
`d/b/a Shao Studio
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
