The gem studio that produced the “Gemma” diamond necklace, which was sold by the owner to a Japanese woman, is owned by a Japanese family.
It was purchased by the gem company of the same name, the Japanese Jewelry Corp., a company that has offices in Tokyo and Hong Kong.
The gem company says the jewelry is not for sale and the owner has sold it to the company in Hong Kong for about $3.5 million.
The family who owns the gem studio is not named in the complaint.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan claims the company “did not make an effort to obtain approval to make the necklace” or obtain any information about the jewelry.
The jewel company says in its complaint that the gem was manufactured by a company called Gemma, which is a subsidiary of Japanese Jewelery Corp., the company that owns the jewelry, and that the jewelry was sold for $3,500.
Gemma’s parent company, Gemma Gem Corp., was established in 2002.
The company is part of the Gemma Group, a company run by the brothers Tetsuo and Taku Matsumoto, who are Japanese.
Tetsou Matsumotos are part of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say that in the spring of 2018, the Matsumoses were invited to the Tokyo jewelry company’s offices to meet with the company’s chief executive officer, and to learn about the company and its products.
Taku, who is also named as a defendant, told the plaintiffs that Gemma was a large, well-known Japanese jewelry maker, and he asked that the Matsums be given a tour of the jewelry studio.
According to the lawsuit and a person familiar with the investigation, Tetso told the Matsumaos that Gemmas jewelry was designed for men and women and would look nice on a man’s neck.
The person familiar said that when the Matsumios arrived at Gemma Studio, they were told by Gemma senior vice president Tomi Nagasawa that they would have to sign a consent form to make an appointment for the jewelry making to begin.
Tatsuo Matsumots response was to request that they speak with Gemma founder Yoshimasa Yonezawa, the person said.
Taksumatsu Matsumotas were told that Yonepawa had told them Gemma had the technology to make jewelry for both men and ladies, and said that it was a good deal, according to the complaint and a representative for the Matsummotos.
The Matsumottos declined to comment.
The complaint states that the Katsumotos then told the Katsumo, a Japanese word meaning “father,” that Gemia would not accept any customers until they signed a consent contract.
The Katsumo was then told that they needed to pay $1,400 to be approved as Gemia’s first customer.
The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that they received their orders by phone and that Gemmas sales staff informed them they had received their jewelry, but that they could not wear it.
The suit says that Gemias sales staff told the defendants that Gemasia was not a licensed jewelry shop and that they were required to use “others” or “foreigners” to make its jewelry.
“The Katsumo Matsumoti were told they were not allowed to wear Gemasia jewelry, that they must buy it at Gemia, and asked to return it,” the lawsuit says.
The case is Tetsubo Matsumotta et al v.
Gemia Gems Inc., 20-cv-00067, U.C.D.C., No. 12-00233.