YoYo’s Hot Dog Owner Danny “Yoyo” Kim poses for a photograph Monday, March 11, 2024 at POST Houston in Houston.
Yi-Chin Lee/Staff photographer
The last time we checked back in with YoYo’s Hot Dogs, they were helping Houston residents find love on their “lonely weiner wall.” Unfortunately, it would seem that a very different kind of event was playing out inside the walls of Harris County District Court that same month.
A Harris County judge has ordered a temporary injunction against WH YoYo LLC co-owners Danny and Chang Kim. Under the injunction, the Kims are restricted from certain financial and organizational functions. The recent moves follow a fresh lawsuit filed by fellow owner Peter Montes, who claims a 49 percent ownership stake in the business. (Chang and Danny have 50 percent and 1 percent respectively.)
Article continues below this ad
Danny “YoYo” Kim opened YoYo’s in 2010 as a hot dog cart. One of the cart’s stops was in Rice Village where it became a cult favorite for late-night drinkers. Over the years, the cart expanded its operations, and Kim brought in Kevin Dang as an investor. A brick-and-mortar location was announced along Washington Avenue, but many wondered what was taking so long.
The fractures begin
Behind the scenes, serious fractures had emerged between Kim, Dang and Montes. Much of the disagreement between the trio centered around who really held the reins of the business. The trio eventually settled their (legal) differences: Kim and Montes bought Dang out of the business, and the pair moved on to open the YoYo’s at 4620 Washington in 2024.
Things seemed fine, even great, according to court documents. The restaurant was generating significant revenue, and Montes said he was receiving monthly distributions between $70,000 to $80,000. But in July 2025, Montes said he started looking at the books and discovered discrepancies. The business relationship between him and the Kims quickly deteriorated.
Article continues below this ad
YoYo’s Hot Dog’s hot dog is photographed Monday, March 11, 2024 at POST Houston in Houston.
Yi-Chin Lee/Staff photographer
“In July of 2025, I reviewed the company’s finances and discovered that despite monthly sales of more than $120,000, there was only about $47,000 remaining in the company’s bank account,” Montes wrote in his affidavit. “When I questioned Danny Kim regarding these discrepancies, he became evasive and ultimately denied me access to the company’s bank accounts, financial records, and point-of-sale systems.”
According to court documents, Montes came to believe and ultimately alleged that the Kims were self-dealing, taking assets and funds away from YoYo’s for their personal benefit and other businesses, specifically other restaurants in which Montes had no ownership stake in. After raising those concerns, Montes alleged that Danny had tried to force him to sign a new operating agreement that would have diminished Montes’ ownership rights and shut him out of YoYo’s books.
Article continues below this ad
Montes files suit
In March 2026, Montes filed his lawsuit against the Kims. Montes is seeking for the Kims to stop the alleged diversion of company assets, regain access to YoYo’s books, recover damages for the company and himself, and permanently protect his ownership rights within the company.
A photo of loaded dogs at Yoyo’s Hot Dogs.
Yoyo’s Hot Dogs
Montes also requested a temporary injunction in the interim, which the judge granted on April 6. For now, the Kims are prohibited from transferring, spending, concealing or dissipating YoYo’s funds outside of its regular operation. They are also forbidden from distributing funds without approval, making loans or transfers with any related businesses, changing YoYo’s governance and destroying or altering the books.
Article continues below this ad
Kims respond
A week later, the Kims filed their answer to the lawsuit as well as a motion to dissolve the injunction. They denied the allegations, said Montes’ allegations are vague, and said the complainant lacks standing to bring this lawsuit.
“The plaintiff [Montes] alleges ‘misuse of funds,’ ‘self-dealing,’ and similar misconduct, but fails to identify with any specificity the factual basis for such claims,” the Kims said. “These bare allegations are nothing more than labels and conclusions and are insufficient to provide the defendants [Kims] with fair notice of the claims against them or to allow the defendants to prepare a defense.”
Article continues below this ad
Ultimately, the Kims want the injunction dissolved, arguing it’s too broad, lacks evidence, and is interfering with day-to-day operations.
According to court documents, the case is scheduled to return to court on March 1, 2027.