Chen v. Eagle Trading USA, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: May 26, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00658
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MAY YAN CHEN d/b/a ABILITY CUSTOMS BROKERS 22-cv-658 (VSB) Plaintiff NOTICE OF MOTION FOR -against- PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMETN PURSUANT EAGLE TRADING USA, LLC, XTYAN TO FRCP RULE 56 ZHANG and SHIPING JIA AGAINST DEFENDANTS EAGLE AND ZHANG Defendants

SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affidavit of May Yan Chen sworn to the 24™ day of May, 2022, the Exhibits attached hereto, the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s motion dated May 24, 2022 and upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, Plaintiff, May Yan Chen, shall move this Court, at the United States Courthouse, located at Courtroom 518, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007 on June 24, 2022 for an order pursuant to FRCP Rule 56 granting Plaintiff partial summary judgment against Eagle Trading USA, LLC, and Xiyan Zhang and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. All answering papers shall be filed no later than seven business days prior to the return date.

Dated: New York, New York Yours, etc., May 24, 2022 SHAYNE LAW GROUP, P.C.

s/William Shayne By: William Shayne Attorneys for the Defendants 64 Fulton Street New York, New York 10028 to Law LLC Wwia ECE 212-906-4909 APPLICATION DENIED, 150 Monument Ron Suite 07 SO ORDERED 11/9 puson" (UA □ Bala Cynwyd, Pa, 19004 VERNON S. BRODERICK 215-621-8008 USDJ. 05/26/22 Att: Xiyan Zhang, Esq. “[A] party against which summary judgment is sought must be afforded a reasonable Pete Wolfgram, Esq. opportunity to elicit information within the control of h[er] adversaries.” In re Dana Corp., 5 F.3d 129, 149 (2d Cir. 2009). Because of this, in general, a motion for summary judgment is “premature” where there has not been “a fully adequate opportunity for discovery.” See Ber v. United States, 87 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, discovery in this action has not commenced, and discovery in the related action before is ongoing. Accordingly, “the □□□□□ judgment motion is now denied as premature, having been filed prior to close of discovery.”