Ma v. Wang
This text of Ma v. Wang (Ma v. Wang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HIU NGAI MA,
Plaintiff, ORDER - against - 21 Civ. 6182 (PGG) SONG WANG and JIAN XIAO,
Defendants.
PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Hiu Ngai Ma asserts that Defendants Song Wang and Jian Xiao have breached an agreement to transfer 5.1 million shares of Takung Art Co., Ltd. in exchange for RMB 140 million by defaulting on certain payments owed to Plaintiff under that agreement. (Pet. (Dkt. No. 1) at 6) Plaintiff has initiated arbitration proceedings before the Beijing Arbitration Commission against Defendants, both of whom appear to reside in China. (Id. at 7, 17) She has filed a petition in this Court for a temporary restraining order in aid of arbitration, an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and an order authorizing alternative service of the temporary restraining order and order to show cause. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from transferring, selling, pledging, granting options on, or otherwise transacting with or disposing of certain shares of stock that is the subject of the arbitration, and to enjoin a third party transfer agent from removing the restrictions in place to prevent the transfer of the shares of stock. (Id. at 7) Before this Court can grant the relief Plaintiff seeks, Plaintiff must demonstrate that this Court has in personam jurisdiction over the Defendants. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 111-12 (1969) (district court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant before it can enjoin its actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65); Visual Scis., Inc. v. Integrated Comme’ns Inc., 660 F.2d 56, 59 (2d Cir. 1981) (“A court must have in personam jurisdiction over a party before it can validly enter even an interlocutory injunction against him.”). Here, Plaintiff has not pled any facts to show that this Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants. Accordingly, in the event that Plaintiff wishes to pursue injunctive relief against Defendants, she will submit supplemental evidence and briefing that provides a basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Any such submission will be made by July 23, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Dated: New York, New York July 21, 2021 SO ORDERED. Fn darstoobe Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ma v. Wang, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ma-v-wang-nysd-2021.