Excerpts. . .
Shanghai is a Chinese manufacturing company. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 3, 8.) Defendants Lucy Imports, LLC ("Lucy") and Lefevre (collectively, "Defendants") are both based in Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) According to Shanghai's complaint, Stacey Mack and Lori Mack are members of both Lucy and Lefevre. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)
In March 2015, Shanghai partnered with Advantage Lifts, LLC ("Advantage"). (Id. ¶ 13.) Advantage was based in the United States and made automotive lifts. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Advantage agreed to order certain products for its lifts from Shanghai, and Shanghai agreed to manufacture and deliver those products to Advantage.
In March 2015, Shanghai partnered with Advantage Lifts, LLC ("Advantage"). (Id. ¶ 13.) Advantage was based in the United States and made automotive lifts. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Advantage agreed to order certain products for its lifts from Shanghai, and Shanghai agreed to manufacture and deliver those products to Advantage.
After the parties signed the Agreement, Advantage told Shanghai that it had sold its assets to Lefevre and planned to assign the Agreement to Lefevre. (Doc. 1, ¶ 19.) Shanghai acknowledged the assignment and began working with Lefevre pursuant to the Agreement
In September 2020, Lefevre asked Shanghai to ship its products and issue its invoices to Lucy instead of Lefevre. (Id. ¶ 22.) Shanghai complied"pursuant to the parties' exclusive Agreement and course of dealing." (Id. ¶ 23- 24.) Lucy ordered and received products from Shanghai from September 2020 to April 2025. (Id. ¶ 25.) Lucy usually paid for the products, but one time, on or about January 29, 2021, Lefevre paid Shanghai $973,411.00 for "delivered Products." (Id.)
The parties' business relationship began to break down in November 2024. (Id. ¶ 28.) That month, Defendants ordered, received, and accepted products from Shanghai, but they did not pay. (Id.) Shanghai kept filling Defendants' orders until April 2025, at which point "Defendants simply owed too much for Shanghai .
. . to operate feasibly." (Id. ¶ 29.) At that point, Defendants owed Shanghai a total of $2,272,571.49 on 67 separate invoices. (Id. ¶ 30.)
Eventually, Shanghai asked Defendants to terminate the Agreement so it could sell its products to other North American customers. (Id. ¶ 32.) Defendants' "principal manager" told Shanghai that "he had no intention of terminating the Agreement or making any immediate payments on the outstanding invoices." (Id. ¶ 33.) The manager also told Shanghai "f you need to leave our agreement, the cost is 2,272,571.49 USD or you can wait for us." (Id. ¶ 34.) Defendants have not paid any of the 67 outstanding invoices. (Id. ¶ 37.) Shanghai sued Defendants on November 13, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Its complaint raises breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment claims against Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 38-57.) Lucy filed an answer to the complaint and admits therein that it has not paid the outstanding invoices from Shanghai. (Doc. 15, ¶ 30.) Lefevre moved to dismiss Shanghai's complaint on January 27, 2026, Doc. 21, and filed a brief in support on February 10, 2026. (Doc. 22.) Shanghai filed a brief in opposition on February 24, 2026, Doc. 23, and Lefevre filed a reply
on March 10, 2026. (Doc. 25.) Accordingly, Lefevre's motion to dismiss is ripe for disposition.
Just part of the story . . it appears that Mack maybe tried to set up a shell company with Lucy to make them fully responsible for the debt instead the original LeFevre that Shanghai had signed with. What I see biting them in the *** is the one time payment $973K by LeFevre.
It looks like this has been an issue for a while and they have been stringing many people and business on for not just a couple of weeks or months.
Shanghai is a Chinese manufacturing company. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 3, 8.) Defendants Lucy Imports, LLC ("Lucy") and Lefevre (collectively, "Defendants") are both based in Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) According to Shanghai's complaint, Stacey Mack and Lori Mack are members of both Lucy and Lefevre. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)
In March 2015, Shanghai partnered with Advantage Lifts, LLC ("Advantage"). (Id. ¶ 13.) Advantage was based in the United States and made automotive lifts. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Advantage agreed to order certain products for its lifts from Shanghai, and Shanghai agreed to manufacture and deliver those products to Advantage.
In March 2015, Shanghai partnered with Advantage Lifts, LLC ("Advantage"). (Id. ¶ 13.) Advantage was based in the United States and made automotive lifts. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Advantage agreed to order certain products for its lifts from Shanghai, and Shanghai agreed to manufacture and deliver those products to Advantage.
After the parties signed the Agreement, Advantage told Shanghai that it had sold its assets to Lefevre and planned to assign the Agreement to Lefevre. (Doc. 1, ¶ 19.) Shanghai acknowledged the assignment and began working with Lefevre pursuant to the Agreement
In September 2020, Lefevre asked Shanghai to ship its products and issue its invoices to Lucy instead of Lefevre. (Id. ¶ 22.) Shanghai complied"pursuant to the parties' exclusive Agreement and course of dealing." (Id. ¶ 23- 24.) Lucy ordered and received products from Shanghai from September 2020 to April 2025. (Id. ¶ 25.) Lucy usually paid for the products, but one time, on or about January 29, 2021, Lefevre paid Shanghai $973,411.00 for "delivered Products." (Id.)
The parties' business relationship began to break down in November 2024. (Id. ¶ 28.) That month, Defendants ordered, received, and accepted products from Shanghai, but they did not pay. (Id.) Shanghai kept filling Defendants' orders until April 2025, at which point "Defendants simply owed too much for Shanghai .
. . to operate feasibly." (Id. ¶ 29.) At that point, Defendants owed Shanghai a total of $2,272,571.49 on 67 separate invoices. (Id. ¶ 30.)
Eventually, Shanghai asked Defendants to terminate the Agreement so it could sell its products to other North American customers. (Id. ¶ 32.) Defendants' "principal manager" told Shanghai that "he had no intention of terminating the Agreement or making any immediate payments on the outstanding invoices." (Id. ¶ 33.) The manager also told Shanghai "f you need to leave our agreement, the cost is 2,272,571.49 USD or you can wait for us." (Id. ¶ 34.) Defendants have not paid any of the 67 outstanding invoices. (Id. ¶ 37.) Shanghai sued Defendants on November 13, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Its complaint raises breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment claims against Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 38-57.) Lucy filed an answer to the complaint and admits therein that it has not paid the outstanding invoices from Shanghai. (Doc. 15, ¶ 30.) Lefevre moved to dismiss Shanghai's complaint on January 27, 2026, Doc. 21, and filed a brief in support on February 10, 2026. (Doc. 22.) Shanghai filed a brief in opposition on February 24, 2026, Doc. 23, and Lefevre filed a reply
on March 10, 2026. (Doc. 25.) Accordingly, Lefevre's motion to dismiss is ripe for disposition.
Just part of the story . . it appears that Mack maybe tried to set up a shell company with Lucy to make them fully responsible for the debt instead the original LeFevre that Shanghai had signed with. What I see biting them in the *** is the one time payment $973K by LeFevre.
It looks like this has been an issue for a while and they have been stringing many people and business on for not just a couple of weeks or months.

