explaining in personal jurisdiction context that “failure to comply with jurisdictional discovery . . . may amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining in personal jurisdiction context that “failure to comply with jurisdictional discovery . . . may amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- finding that “since the necessary jurisdictional information is in the exclusive control of the defendants, where they have failed to provide the information, plaintiffs have satisfied their burden” (cleaned up)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KOON CHUN HING KEE SOY &
SAUCE FACTORY, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 19-CV-2026
-against-
JESSICA YANG A/K/A YANG XIAO
GENG A/K/A JESSICA QIAO, YI Q.
ZHAN A/K/A YI QIANG ZHAN
A/K/A JIMMY ZHAN, STAR MARK
MANAGEMENT, INC., GREAT
MARK CORPORATION, GREAT
KINGSLAND, INC., G.K EXOTIC,
INC., EZ FANTASY, INC., BEAUTY
LOVER EXPRESS, INC., JOHNSON
STORAGE, INC., ZME GALAXY
CORP., J & J GLOBAL USA, INC.,
and EDMUND ZHAN,
Defendants.
For the Plaintiff: For the Defendants:
PETER SVERD T. BRYCE JONES
Law Offices of Peter Sverd, PLLC Jones Law Firm, P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 613 1270 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10007 New York, NY 10020
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Saucy Factory, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) commenced
this action in 2019, seeking to impose liability for a 2010 judgment on Jessica
Yang, Yi Q. Zhan, Star Mark Management, Inc., Great Mark Corp., Great
Kingsland, Inc., G.K. Exotic, Inc., EZ Fantasy, Inc., Beauty Lover Express, Inc.,
Johnson Storage, Inc., ZME Galaxy Corp., J & J Global USA, Inc., and Edmund
Zhan (collectively, “Defendants”).
On November 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment on six counts, while giving Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint with
respect to two counts and dismissing the remaining counts. See Memorandum &
Order, ECF No. 72. On January 17, 2023, after Plaintiff elected not to amend its
complaint, the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. See Judgment, ECF No.
77. Defendants G.K Exotic, Great Kingsland, J & J Global USA, and Jessica Yang
then appealed.
On appeal, the Second Circuit ordered the parties to submit supplemental
briefing concerning the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case and, in
particular, the citizenship status of individual defendant Yang for purposes of
establishing alienage jurisdiction. See Order, No. 23-188 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2024),
ECF No. 160. In response, Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had failed to
establish the individual defendants’ citizenship status, and that there was a
consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Def.’s Supplemental Letter
Brief, No. 23-188 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2024), ECF No. 161. After an inconclusive oral
argument, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court “to determine
whether the individual defendants are United States citizens for the purpose of
establishing alienage jurisdiction.” Order of Apr. 23, 2024, ECF No. 100.
On August 1, 2024, pursuant to the Second Circuit’s mandate, the Court
issued an electronic order instructing individual defendant Yang “to file and serve
an affidavit, which may be filed under seal, attesting under penalty of perjury as to
her immigration status (citizen, lawful permanent resident, or other) in the United
States.” On August 19, 2024, the Court issued a second electronic order, noting
Yang’s non-compliance with the prior order, and again ordering her to file an
affidavit attesting to her immigration status.
To date, Defendants have refused to comply with these orders.
Consequently, the Court has been unable to determine Yang’s citizenship status.
Because the necessary information to establish Yang’s citizenship status is in
Defendants’ control, and the Defendants resisting jurisdiction have refused to
provide it, the Court may draw the adverse inference that Yang is a U.S. citizen.
See Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619, 641 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining
in personal jurisdiction context that “failure to comply with jurisdictional
discovery . . . may amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc.,
247 F.R.D. 296, 312 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding that “since the necessary
jurisdictional information is in the exclusive control of the defendants, where they
have failed to provide the information, plaintiffs have satisfied their burden”
(cleaned up)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) (providing that when a party
does not obey a court discovery order the court may “direct[] that the matters
embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes
of the action”).
Accordingly, in light of Defendants’ non-compliance with multiple orders to
supply information concerning Yang’s citizenship status, the Court infers that Yang
is a U.S. citizen for purposes of establishing alienage jurisdiction in this action.
Aside from Yang, there are sufficient allegations and evidence that Plaintiff is a
Hong Kong corporation, and the remaining entity Defendants are New York
corporations, and that the requirements of diversity are satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(2).
The Court will therefore re-enter final judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in
conformity with the Court’s prior summary judgment order and judgment. See
Judgment, ECF No. 77.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block__________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
November 27, 2024