D016 | S295 | 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Mechanical extraction of the PDF’s existing text layer. No OCR performed. Reading order, stamps, handwriting, tables and symbols may be incomplete or inaccurate. Compare quotations with the unchanged original PDF; PDF page numbers refer to file pages, not necessarily printed page labels. Extraction is not court authentication or legal verification. PDF page 1 — text-layer available 1 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 TALG, NV, LTD. Ismail Amin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9343 Carlyn R. Nordling Nevada Bar No. 16943 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (702) 954-3861 iamin@talglaw.com cnordling@talglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA XCMG North America Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CanLift Equipment, Ltd., Defendant. CanLift Equipment, Ltd., Counterclaimant, v. XCMG North America Corporation, and XCMG America Financial, LLC, Counter-Defendants. Case No.: 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS Defendant Can Lift Equipment, Ltd. (“Defendant”) , by and through its counsel of record, TALG, NV, LTD., and hereby responds to Plaintiff XCMG North America Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, filed on April 17, 2026 (the “Complaint”), as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph I of the Complaint. 2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph II of the Complaint. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 1 of 25 PDF page 2 — text-layer available 2 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph III of the Complaint. 4. Defendant admits allegations in Paragraph IV of the Complaint that the Agreement permits Plaintiff to charge 1.5% interest per month on the unpaid balance if the Rental Share payment is in default continuing for five (5) business days. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of “all direct expenses incurred by Plaintiff in an attempt to recover any balance due,” and, on that basis, denies the allegation. Defendant further denies that the Agreement permits Plaintiff to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. 5. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief “as to expiration of the rental term for each specific piece of supplied equipment or parts” in Paragraph V, since a piece of supplied equipment may include independent parts or attachments, which Plaintiff may have supplied at different times. On that basis, Defendant denies the allegation. Defendant further denies any remaining allegation based on the concept of “expiration of the rental term for each specific piece of supplied equipment or part.” 6. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Paragraph VI regarding Defendant’s indebtedness. Further, Paragraph VI asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth therein. 7. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Paragraph VI I regarding Defendant’s indebtedness. Further, Paragraph VII asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth therein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract – Rental Share) 8. In response to Paragraph VIII, Defendant repeats its responses to each allegation in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 9. In response to Paragraph IX, Defendant denies each and every allegation in this Paragraph IX because the allegations in this Paragraph are qualified by steps Defendant has taken to mitigate its damages. Thus, Paragraph IX asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph IX. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 2 of 25 PDF page 3 — text-layer available 3 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 10. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph X regarding costs and attorneys’ fees, and on that basis denies the allegation. Further, Paragraph X asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and, on that basis, Defendant denies the allegations set forth therein. 11. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Paragraph XI. Further, Paragraph XI asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and on that basis, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph XI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract – Buyout) 12. In response to Paragraph XII, Defendant repeats its responses to each allegation in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 13. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph XIII as to “expiration of the rental term for each specific piece of rented equipment or parts.” On that basis, Defendant denies the allega tion. Defendant further denies any remaining allegation premised on “expiration of the rental term for each specific piece of rented equipment or parts.” Defendant also denies each and every allegation in Paragraph XIII that asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations. 14. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph XIV; on that basis, Defendant denies each and every allegation. 15. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Paragraph XV regarding Defendant’s indebtedness. Further, Paragraph XV asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph XV. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – IN THE ALTERNATIVE (Unjust Enrichment) 16. In response to Paragraph XVI, Defendant repeats its responses to each allegation in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 3 of 25 PDF page 4 — text-layer available 4 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 17. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Paragraph XV II. Further, Paragraph XVII asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph XVII. 18. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Paragraph XV III. Further, Paragraph XVIII asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph XVIII. 19. Defendant denies each and every allegation in Paragraph XIX. Further, Paragraph XIX asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph XIX. 20. Paragraph XX asserts conclusions of law rather than factual allegations, and, on that basis, Defendant also denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph XX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant CanLift prays for relief as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing for its First Cause of Action; 2. That Plaintiff takes nothing for its Second Cause of Action; 3. That Plaintiff takes nothing for its Third Cause of Action in the alternative; 4. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and in its entirety. 5. That Defendant be awarded costs incurred in defending this action; 6. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees as permitted by contract or by operation of law; and 7. That Defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The relief sought by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands because the damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff were caused in whole or in part or were contributed to by Plaintiff. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 4 of 25 PDF page 5 — text-layer available 5 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant exercised such reasonable care and diligence. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the parties’ contracts and established course of dealing. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s conduct and activities bar and/or diminish Plaintiff’s recovery herein under the doctrine of waiver. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, based upon Plaintiff’s wrongful conduct. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, by virtue of its own acts and omissions, is estopped from recovering damages from Defendant. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because Defendant has not interfered with Plaintiff’s legal rights. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because at all times mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to act in a manner authorized and/or required by law. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because at all times mentioned in the Complaint, Defendant acted in a manner authorized and/or required by law. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant substantially complied with all material requirements of the valid, enforceable contract(s) at issue. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 5 of 25 PDF page 6 — text-layer available 6 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 Plaintiff failed, refused, and neglected to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damages alleged, if any, thus barring or diminishing Plaintiff’s recovery herein. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because the contract was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable against Defendant. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because Defendant entered into the Rental Agreement as a result of Plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement. However, based on information and belief, Plaintiff had no intent to keep the promises made in the Rental Agreement. The Agreement procured through fraudulent inducement warrants rescission. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s damages should be offset by any amount owed to Defendant. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times relevant in the Complaint, Defendant acted in a commercially reasonable manner, dealing fairly and in good faith, and acted without intent to inflict harm or damage. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times relevant in the Complaint, Defendant acted pursuant to all of its obligations, if any, and was justified or privileged in its actions. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because Defendant did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as Defendant did not act in bad faith. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any contract is void for lack of consideration. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because any contract is void as illegal. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 6 of 25 PDF page 7 — text-layer available 7 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 Plaintiff’s claims are not well grounded in fact and are not warranted by existing law or by a good-faith argument for the extension or modification of existing law, but are pursued for the purpose of harassment, unnecessary delay, and the incurrence of needless costs of litigation to Defendant. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that if any contract, obligations, or agreements as alleged in the Complaint were entered into, any duty of performance for Defendant was excused by reason of failure of consideration, breach of cond ition precedent, impossibility of performance, prevention by Plaintiff, frustration of purpose, waiver by Plaintiff, and/or acceptance by Plaintiff. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Statute of Frauds bars Plaintiff’s claims. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under applicable Nevada law. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff’s prior nonperformance excused Defendant’s subsequent nonperformance. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because Plaintiff received the benefit of its bargain. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because Plaintiff caused Defendant’s alleged nonperformance in that Plaintiff knew that Defendant’s rental income was dependent on Plaintiff’s supply of equipment and replacement parts; thus, by re fusing to provide equipment and replacements, Plaintiff intentionally frustrated the efforts of Defendant to produce rental income under the Rental Agreement. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, because Plaintiff ratified Defendant’s conduct. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 7 of 25 PDF page 8 — text-layer available 8 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant has valid legal and/or equitable excuses for any claims raised by Plaintiff. Pursuant to FRCP 8, as amended, all possible affirmative defenses may not have been alleged herein insofar as sufficient facts were not available after reasonable inquiry upon filing the Answer; therefore, Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to allege any additional affirmative defenses as subsequent investigation warrants. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to FRCP 8, as amended, all possible affirmative defenses may not have been alleged herein insofar as sufficient facts are not available after reasonable inquiry from the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In the event that further investigation or discovery in this case reveals the applicability of any additional affirmative defenses, including, but not limited to, those enumerated in FRCP 8(c), Defendant reserves the right to specifically assert any such defenses. The defenses contained in FRCP 8(c) are incorporated herein by reference for the specific purpose of not waiving any such defense. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of the Complaint and that the same is dismissed with prejudice; 2. That Defendant be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, equitable, and proper. Dated: September 29, 2026 TALG, NV, LTD. By: /s/ Ismail Amin ________________________ Ismail Amin, Esq. (Bar No. 9343) Carlyn R. Nordling, Esq. (Bar No. 16943) 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Attorneys for Defendant Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 8 of 25 PDF page 9 — text-layer available 9 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 COUNTERCLAIMS Defendant and Counterclaimant, CanLift Equipment, Ltd. (“Counterclaimant” or “CanLift”), by and through its counsel of record, TALG, NV, LTD., hereby asserts the following Counterclaims against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant XCMG North America Corporation (“XCMG North America”) and Counter-Defendant XCMG America Financial , LLC (“XCMG Financial”) (with XCMG North America, collectively “Counter-Defendants”): PARTIES 1. CanLift is, and was at all times relevant herein, a corporation domiciled in Ontario, Canada. 2. At all relevant times, XCMG North America is and was a corporation incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Nevada. 3. At all relevant times, XCMG Financial is and was a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware and with its principal place of business in Georgia. CanLift does not know the domicile of XCMG Financial’s members at this time. 4. Counter-Defendants are all directly or indirectly owned subsidiar ies of XCMG Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. (“XCMG China”). See Dkt. No. 13. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because diversity exists between the Parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 6. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because XCMG North America’s principal place of business is in this district in Nevada, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), Counter-Defendants are subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this action. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. CanLift is in the business of selling, leasing, and servicing heavy equipment and machinery used in the construction industry, specifically for lift and material-handling equipment. 8. At all relevant times, XCMG North America was a supplier of heavy equipment and machinery, accessories, and repair parts for construction, utilities, lift, and material handling industries manufactured by XCMG China. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 9 of 25 PDF page 10 — text-layer available 10 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 9. On information and belief, XCMG North America and XCMG Financial were operational subsidiaries in the U.S. for XCMG China at all relevant times. A. Business Relationship Between CanLift and XCMG. 10. In or around 2021, CanLift was approached by Sam Chen and Joe Jang, who were representatives of the XCMG entities. They had a letter stating they were authorized distributors of XCMG-branded mobile elevated work platforms and other complementary equipment in Canada. 11. Mr. Chen and Mr. Jang proposed that CanLift consider becoming a distributor of XCMG-branded equipment in Ontario. CanLift responded that it would prefer to deal directly with the XCMG manufacturer. 12. Discussions continued, and Mr. Chen and Mr. Jang eventually introduced CanLift to Victor Jiang, the Chief Executive Officer of XCMG Canada, Ltd. (“XCMG Canada”), who reassured CanLift that the XCMG equipment was good quality, CSA -compliant, and built to th en-current regulations. 13. Mr. Jiang also represented that there would be full -parts distribution and quality - assurance support in Canada. 14. Based upon these representations, CanLift entered into a Distributor Agreement, dated October 8, 2021 (the “Distributor Agreement”), with XCMG China. 15. On July 7, 2021, CanLift entered into a written Rental Agreement (the “First Rental Agreement”) with XCMG North America. CanLift and XCMG North America then entered into a subsequent Rental Agreement, dated October 20, 2022 (the “Second Rental Agreement”) (collectively referred to as the “Rental Agreements”). 16. Under the Distributor Agreement and the Rental Agreements, CanLift is designated as the exclusive dealer of heavy equipment manufactured by XCMG in Ontario, Canada. 17. Under the terms of these agreements, CanLift was required to obtain approximately one hundred (100) pieces of equipment annually, with a goal of a sixty percent (60%) average fleet utilization. CanLift would then pay a rental share of seventy percent (70%) of the gross rental income to XCMG North America for the term of three (3) years, with Counterclaimant expected to buyout the equipment at the end of the three (3) year term. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 10 of 25 PDF page 11 — text-layer available 11 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 18. During the Parties’ business relationship, CanLift received the majority of the units of heavy machinery, equipment, and replacement parts Counter-Defendants shipped from China, but all payments were made to XCMG North America directly. 19. After the 3 -year terms of both the Distributor Agreement and the Rental Agreements expired, the Parties continued their business relationship under the terms of these agreements. 20. In November 2023, CanLift received the new 2024 dealer pricing. In May 2024, CanLift received a new warranty policy, and in August 2024, Counterclaimant was introduced to a new vice-president for after sales support. 21. XCMG China also tried to move its Canadian dealers, including CanLift, to agreements with XCMG Canada. 22. These actions demonstrate the intent of the Parties to continue the contractual relationship as an established course of dealings. B. Undisclosed Defects: 23. Around late 202 2 and early 202 3, CanLift noticed a significant number of recurring machine failures, which Counter-Defendants did not disclose. For example, these equipment defects included, but are not limited to: a. All electric scissor lifts had defective brakes, caused by a defective drive motor. Counterclaimant received new brake kits, but they also failed. b. All electric scissor lifts had drive motor harness failures, and the wires often became severed from connectors due to poor quality. c. The hydraulic center posts would seize up, impacting all hydraulic lines. This defect affected all boom lifts except the XGS158 model. d. All boom lifts had connectors that were not installed correctly on the safety limit switches, requiring them to be replaced before they broke apart. The connectors should have been installed at different angles to relieve tension and strain. e. All of the main harness connectors on the boom lifts needed to be replaced. The wire and pins were of poor quality and did not provide an adequate connection. Inadequate connection Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 11 of 25 PDF page 12 — text-layer available 12 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 caused significant resistance between the parts. The heat from the resistance would melt the wire and pins in the harness, causing the boom lift to short-circuit and render the machine without power. f. The IMCT4050S machine controller fail ed due to a faulty resistor on the computer board, which stopped all power to the machine. Counter-Defendants sent new controllers to CanLift, but they were equally defective, and the same problem recurred. Replacing the resistors was not an option because CanLift did not have access to a cleanroom, a highly controlled, enclosed space that provides the necessary contaminant-free environment for working with circuit boards. g. All of the rough terrain scissor lifts needed to have the drive, steer, and brake lines rerouted and replaced, as the protective materials around them were worn down to the point of failing, which would result in uncontrolled oil spills. C. Discrepancies in Material Representation Regarding XCMG Products 24. Each piece of equipment comes with a serial plate affixed to its exterior that displays the serial number, which reflects the year of manufacture and the equipment’s assembly plant. Additionally, the serial plates listed the years of manufacture in the standard date format (e.g., 2023). 25. It is common in the industry to rely on the date of manufacture listed on the plate instead of obtaining that information by decoding the serial number. 26. On or about September 11, 2024, Marko Dragicevic, the managing partner of CanLift, received training materials from Rick Stevens, whom he believed to be a Senior Service Manager with XCMG North America. 27. These training materials included a chart for decoding serial numbers assigned to equipment units. 28. The decoder showed what each number and letter in the serial number meant. The tenth (10th) digit in a serial number represents the year of manufacture. For example, the letter “N” represents a 2022 manufacture date. 29. On or about November 12, 2024, CanLift further discovered serial plate tampering when a large stack of loose serial plates was discovered in its parts department. 30. The serial numbers on those plates matched many pieces of equipment that were in CanLift’s inventory or stored in its yard and owned by XCMG Canada. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 12 of 25 PDF page 13 — text-layer available 13 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 31. CanLift did not originally intend to purchase these pieces of equipment but purchased them on short notice out of necessity. 32. Each plate had a discrepancy between the year of manufacture represented in the serial numbers and the date listed on the plate. 33. Upon information and belief, these plates had not yet been installed because the plate switching process could not be completed and CanLift was never meant to discover the loose plates. 34. CanLift was also told by Raul Lopez, an employee of XCMG North America, that some machines were fitted with plates that misrepresented the assembly plant. For example, some of the Xe55u excavators were manufactured in India, but the serial plates were changed to show the equipment was made in China. 35. CanLift conducted further inspection of an array of sixty (60) units following the discovery of loose plates, which revealed that twenty -seven (27) units out of sixty (60) showed the incorrect manufacture date. 36. CanLift emailed Gengzong Qiu, the Chief Executive Officer of XCMG Financial and the Chief Financial Officer of XCMG North America, about the plate issue. Other XCMG employees were also copied on the email, including Chris Li, Victor Jiang, Joe Bellanc a, Quan Liu, and David Zhang. 37. After CanLift raised these issues, “Johnny,” one of Counter -Defendants’ employees, attempted to take the loose serial plates from CanLift. 38. CanLift did not return the serial plates to Counter-Defendants. Instead, it held onto them until the Royal Canadian Mounted Police requested the loose plates. 39. Shortly after the discovery of the serial plate tampering, CanLift located a portion of the ninety (90) scissor lifts it had returned to Counter-Defendants in May 2023, which Counter-Defendants then sold to Iron Mountain Equipment Rentals Ltd (“Iron Mountain”). CanLift repurchased four (4) scissor lifts from Iron Mountain. 40. CanLift had returned the scissor lifts to Counter -Defendants because they were not CSA-compliant. However, the four (4) repurchased scissor lifts were fitted with new plates listing a Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 13 of 25 PDF page 14 — text-layer available 14 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 2024 manufacture date and stating that they were CSA -approved. However, the serial number itself indicated a 2021 manufacture date. D. XCMG North America’s Refusal to Supply Parts 41. Under the terms of the Agreements, XCMG North America was to provide the parts for the equipment and any repairs. However, XCMG North America often demanded CanLift pay costs upfront and then submit paperwork for reimbursement or recoup the cost through warranty claims. 42. XCMG North America represented that these claims would be fulfilled and that CanLift would be compensated. 43. However, these claims were often denied without sufficient explanation, leaving CanLift without any means to recover the costs it paid out of pocket, which XCMG North America was to bear under the terms of the Agreements. 44. Shortly after serial plate tampering came to light in the fall of 2024, the business relationship between the Parties began to deteriorate. XCMG North America began refusing to provide parts for older equipment models, which comprised a significant portio n of CanLift’s inventory. On multiple occasions, CanLift received only partial shipments of parts, making it impossible to complete repairs. 45. CanLift was then forced to use parts from other machines in the fleet to effectuate repairs. At one point, four (4) telehandlers in the fleet were rendered unusable because XCMG refused to ship the required replacement parts for the telehandlers. 46. As a result of XCMG North America’s refusal to ship the replacement parts, CanLift’s inventory of Counter -Defendants’ equipment eventually became unsellable. The unsold inventory consists of approximately four hundred and eighty-six (486) pieces of equipment. 47. CanLift has also incurred substantial operating, repair, and freight costs due to Counter- Defendants’ actions. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract – Against XCMG North America) 48. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 14 of 25 PDF page 15 — text-layer available 15 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 49. The Rental Agreements are valid and binding contracts between CanLift and XCMG North America, which have governed their business relationship and ongoing transactions from the date of these agreements until the Parties severed their business relationship. 50. At all times, CanLift performed all conditions and obligations under the Rental Agreements. 51. XCMG North America has breached those agreements first by failing to provide equipment free from defects, failing to assist with appropriate technical support, and failing to provide the required parts under the terms of the Rental Agreement, which is the operational equivalent of cutting off the means by which CanLift generates rental income. 52. XCMG North America further breached by denying the warranty claims without sufficient explanation, leaving CanLift without any means to recover the costs it paid out of pocket, which XCMG was to bear under the terms of the Agreements. 53. As a direct and proximate cause of XCMG North America’s breach, Counterclaimant has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 54. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – Against XCMG North America) 55. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. 56. The Rental Agreements are valid and binding contracts between CanLift and XCMG North America, which have governed their business relationship and ongoing transactions from the date of these agreements until the Parties severed their business relationship. 57. Nevada law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract’s performance and enforcement. 58. CanLift has performed all obligations owed to XCMG North America in connection with those contracts, except those waived or excused by XCMG North America ’s willful non - performance, which constitutes material breach. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 15 of 25 PDF page 16 — text-layer available 16 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 59. XCMG North America has willfully breached and frustrated CanLift’s performance of those contracts through its bad-faith conduct that includes, without limitation: a. Refusing to provide necessary assistance to CanLift to complete the repairs as XCMG North America was obligated to do under the terms of the Rental Agreement; and b. Refusing to ship replacement parts required to repair the equipment CanLift obtained from XCMG North America under the terms of the Rental Agreements, making it impossible to complete repairs. 60. XCMG North America breached the Rental Agreement by its refusal to provide the necessary parts or assistance with repairs under the terms of the Rental Agreement, which is the operational equivalent of cutting off the means by which CanLift generates rental income. 61. As a direct and proximate cause of XCMG North America’s breach, Counterclaimant has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 62. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment – Against All Counter-Defendants) 63. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. 64. Counter-Defendants have knowingly received and accepted the material benefit of Counterclaimant’s repair and maintenance services on their heavy machinery and material handling equipment by repeatedly failing to provide defect -free equipment and have unjustly retained that benefit by failing to properly compensate CanLift. 65. Counter-Defendants have been unjustly enriched by these services as CanLift repaired and maintained units of machines riddled with defects to make repaired and safety -checked machines and equipment available for lease or sale. CanLift has incurred out -of-pocket costs to repair the equipment. 66. As a direct and proximate cause of Counter-Defendants’ unjust acts, Counterclaimant has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 16 of 25 PDF page 17 — text-layer available 17 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 67. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Inducement – Against XCMG North America) 68. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. 69. In 2021, Counter -Defendants’ representatives approached CanLift with a proposal to become a distributor for XCMG-branded heavy equipment and machinery in Ontario, Canada. During the negotiations that followed, XCMG North America knowingly made false representations to CanLift that the equipment was of good quality, CSA-compliant, and that there would be full parts distribution and quality assurance support for CanLift. 70. XCMG North America repeated these false representations throughout their negotiations with CanLift to induce CanLift to consent to the formation of Rental Agreements. 71. CanLift’s reliance on XCMG North America’s false representations was justified, given that the deal was structured for Counter -Defendants to receive a portion of CanLift’s gross rental revenue of the equipment it procures from Counter -Defendants. Thus, it was reasonable for CanLift to rely on XCMG North America’s incentive to provide quality products and replacement parts to increase their share of CanLift’s rental income. 72. CanLift was further justified in relying on XCMG North America’s false representations because XCMG North America was in a position as the manufacturer’s operational subsidiaries in the U.S. and Canada to know the quality and availability of the manufacturer’s products. 73. In full and justifiable reliance upon XCMG North America ’s false representation, CanLift entered into the Rental Agreement. 74. As referenced above, facts support the conclusion that serial plate tampering is one of XCMG North America’s systematic patterns of conduct. 75. Shortly after serial plate tampering came to light in the fall of 2024, Counter-Defendants showed an utter lack of interest in maintaining the established course of dealings based on the terms of Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 17 of 25 PDF page 18 — text-layer available 18 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 the contract. Counter-Defendants began refusing to provide parts for older equipment models, which comprised a significant portion of CanLift’s inventory. 76. The Rental Agreement itself is the core of the deception based on false representation of material terms because the Parties’ business relationship terminated soon after CanLift’s investigation revealed serial plate tampering in the fall of 2024. 77. Thus, in the event CanLift is required to pay any amount of damages Counter - Defendants prove at trial, to prevent Counter -Defendants from obtaining benefit derived from its fraudulent conduct , the Court should grant rescission of the Rental Agreements procured through fraudulent inducement. 78. As a direct and proximate cause of Counter-Defendants’ unjust acts, Counterclaimant has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 79. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Misrepresentation – Against XCMG North America) 80. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. 81. XCMG North America had a business and pecuniary interest in the relationship between the Parties. 82. XCMG North America negligently misrepresented the condition of the equipment pieces, orally and in writing, providing quality assurance for the equipment pieces t hey proposed to deliver to CanLift. 83. XCMG North America further represented that the equipment or machinery t hey provided to CanLift would be CSA-compliant and free of defects. 84. CanLift justifiably relied on these representations and suffered harm as a result. 85. CanLift was further justified in relying on XCMG North America’s representations because Counter-Defendants were in a position as the manufacturer’s operational subsidiaries in the U.S. and Canada to know the quality and availability of the manufacturer’s products. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 18 of 25 PDF page 19 — text-layer available 19 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 86. XCMG North America failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating the false but material information regarding the heavy machinery and material handling equipment involved in the transaction. 87. As a direct and proximate cause of XCMG North America’s negligent misrepresentation, Counterclaimant has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 88. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from XCMG North America. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Advertising – Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act Violation – Against XCMG North America) 89. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. 90. XCMG North America’s representatives approached CanLift in 2021 with a proposal to become a distributor for XCMG -branded heavy equipment and machinery in Ontario , Canada. During the subsequent negotiations, XCMG North America orally advertised their products and services. XCMG North America falsely advertised, in specific terms, that their products are CSA - compliant and free of defects. 91. XCMG North America repeated these false representations throughout their negotiations with CanLift to induce CanLift to consent to the formation of Rental Agreements. 92. At all relevant times, XCMG North America’s online advertising, which also misrepresented the country of origin, pricing, and condition of XCMG equipment , was available to CanLift. 93. Thus, in view of XCMG North America’s offer of distributorship, CanLift reviewed and considered the representation s made in those advertisements, which seemed to corroborate XCMG North America’s oral advertising through serial plate tampering. 94. CanLift’s reliance on XCMG North America’s false advertisement of the heavy machinery and equipment was justified, given that the proposed deal was structured for XCMG North Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 19 of 25 PDF page 20 — text-layer available 20 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 America to receive a portion of CanLift’s gross rental revenue of the equipment it procures from Counter-Defendants. Thus, it was reasonable for CanLift to rely on Counter-Defendants’ incentive to provide quality products. 95. CanLift was further justified in relying on Counter-Defendants’ false advertising because XCMG North America was in a position as the manufacturer’s operational subsidiaries in the U.S. and Canada to know the quality and availability of the manufacturer’s products. 96. In full and justifiable reliance on XCMG North America’s false advertising, CanLift formed a business relationship with Counter-Defendants. 97. As a direct and proximate cause of XCMG North America’s false advertising, CanLift has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 98. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Concealment – Against XCMG North America) 99. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations contained in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. 100. XCMG North America was well aware that a substantial inventory of their equipment had substantial defects, which significantly reduced the marketability and value of the affected equipment pieces. 101. Facts regarding the defect are material to buyers because disclosing the defects would either reduce the value of the affected pieces relative to their listed prices or deter potential buyers. 102. Nevertheless, XCMG North America listed the prices of the defective equipment pieces as those of similar pieces free of such defects. 103. XCMG North America actively concealed the defects, listing their defective inventory at market prices for similar pieces free of such defects. 104. XCMG North America also actively concealed the defects by altering the manufacturing dates of older equipment pieces to appear newer than their actual condition. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 20 of 25 PDF page 21 — text-layer available 21 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 105. Had CanLift been aware of such facts, it would not have entered into transactions or continued the business relationship. However, CanLift justifiably relied on XCMG North America’s lack of disclosure about the material defect in the equipment pieces and entered into transactions with them. 106. As a direct and proximate cause of XCMG North America’s fraudulent concealment, Counterclaimant has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 107. XCMG North America’s acts were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, entitling Counterclaimant to punitive damages under NRS 42.005. 108. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Representation – Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act Violation – Against XCMG North America) 109. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations contained in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. 110. XCMG North America has violated NRS 598.0915 by knowingly making false representations to CanLift regarding the geographic origin, date of manufacture, and the condition of the heavy machinery and equipment they manufactured and offered for sale and lease. 111. Facts regarding the geographic origin, date of manufacture, and the condition of the machinery and equipment XCMG North America offered for sale to CanLift and other heavy equipment distributors are material to sale or lease transactions, because such facts are essential for determining the value of items in the purchase or lease transactions. 112. XCMG North America has also violated NRS 598.0923 when they intentionally and actively altered material facts related to the age, country of origin, and condition of the equipment they supplied to CanLift, using an unconscionable business practice of serial plate tampering. 113. XCMG North America altered the information on the serial plates to units of heavy equipment for the sole purpose of selling or renting older inferior products riddled with defects to CanLift and other distributors at the price of a newer version of such products free of defects. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 21 of 25 PDF page 22 — text-layer available 22 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 114. CanLift justifiably relied on XCMG North America’s false representations of material facts regarding age, country of origin, and condition of the equipment because such representations were made by the operational subsidiaries of the manufacturer, and XCMG North America had a financial incentive to provide equipment pieces and replacement parts in good working order. 115. XCMG North America did not deliver good -quality equipment or machinery or sufficient replacement parts to repair the faulty equipment. 116. As a result of CanLift’s justifiable reliance on XCMG North America , CanLift was essentially left holding a stockpile of machinery and equipment that has been rendered useless. 117. The fact that every one of CanLift’s investigations revealed a substantial number of units of equipment fitted with serial plates misrepresenting the date of manufacture, or the country of origin, undercuts the notion that such misrepresentations were merely inadvertent. 118. During the course of its investigation, CanLift discovered claims for false representation that XCMG North America’s distributors filed against them that describe numerous instances where XCMG North America engaged in serial plate tampering. Thus, the number of instances involving XCMG North America’s alteration of serial plates shows that such conduct is XCMG North America’s systemic pattern. 119. The facts alleged in the preceding paragraphs support CanLift’s contention that XCMG North America has willfully and knowingly engaged in deceptive trade practices, and that CanLift is entitled to an award of treble damages under NRS 598.0999. 120. As a direct and proximate cause of XCMG North America’s deceptive trade practices, CanLift has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 121. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Warranty – Against XCMG North America and XCMG Financial) 122. CanLift repeats and re -alleges the allegations contained in each preceding paragraph and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph, as though fully set forth herein. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 22 of 25 PDF page 23 — text-layer available 23 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 123. XCMG North America and XCMG Financial made express warranties to CanLift regarding the quality of the equipment, that it was CSA-compliant, and built to then-current regulations. 124. XCMG North America and XCMG Financial also made representations related to the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose as they represented the equipment would be fit for CanLift’s specific business of renting and reselling construction equipment. XCMG North America and XCMG Financial had full knowledge of what CanLift intended to use the equipment for and specifically represented the equipment would meet those needs. 125. XCMG North America and XCMG Financial breached those express and implied warranties by providing equipment full of defects and issues that rendered them non -CSA compliant and unsafe, including but not limited to defective brakes, faulty connectors, and con troller failures. The equipment was not fit for an ordinary purpose or for CanLift’s specific business needs. 126. As a direct and proximate cause of XCMG North America and XCMG Financial’ s breaches, CanLift has been damaged in excess of $75,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 127. Counterclaimant has been required to obtain the service of an attorney and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Counter-Defendants. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Counterclaimant CanLift prays for the following relief against Counter - Defendants: 1. For judgment against Counter -Defendants for actual and compensatory damages according to proof; 2. For judgment against Counter-Defendants for all equitable relief; 3. For an award of prejudgment interest at the highest rate permitted by law until paid in full; 4. For all punitive damages; 5. For all statutory treble damages under NRS 598.0999; 6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and /// /// Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 23 of 25 PDF page 24 — text-layer available 24 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 7. For any further relief as the Court deems to be just and proper. Dated this 29th day of September 2026. TALG, NV, LTD. /s/ Ismail Amin Ismail Amin, Esq. (Bar No. 9343) Carlyn R. Nordling, Esq. (Bar No. 16943) 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 24 of 25 PDF page 25 — text-layer available 25 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALG, NV, LTD. 5852 S. Durango Dr., Suite 105 Las Vegas, NV 8911 3 Phone: (702) 954 -3861 / Fax: (949) 266 -8406 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of TALG, NV, LTD. and that on this 29th day of September, 2026, I did cause a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS to be served upon each of the parties listed below via electronic service through the Court’s Pacer File and Service system: WIRTHLIN & VERLAINE Brenock “Nick” Wirthlin, Esq. 400 S. 4th Street Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89101 KUTAK ROCK LLP (Admitted to practice pro hac vice) Lisa M. Peters, Esq. Andrea Deleon Cruz, Esq. The Omaha Building 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102 Attorneys for Petitioner XCMG North America Corporation /s/ Kavita Narh ________________ An employee of TALG, NV, LTD. Case 2:26-cv-01508-APG-MDC Document 36 Filed 09/29/26 Page 25 of 25