King et al v. Wang et al
| Kenneth King and Yien-Koo King |
| Andrew Wang, Shou-Kung Wang, Bao Wu Tang, Jian Bao Gallery, Anthony Chou, Chen-Mei-Lin, Wei Zheng, Ye Yong-Qing, Yue Da-Jin and John Does |
| 1:2014cv07694 |
| September 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| John F. Keenan |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
344
ORDER: The Court has been informed that the parties have reached a settlement in principle in this case. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to restoring the action to the Court 9;s calendar, provided the application to restore the action is made within sixty (60) days of this Order. Any application to reopen filed after sixty (60) days from the date of this Order may be denied solely on that basis. Any pending motions are DISMISSED as moot, and all conferences and deadlines are CANCELLED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 4/28/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
337
ORDER: The Court will hold a hearing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104, on December 7, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., regarding the admissibility of the Artron and Artnet records. At that hearing, the Court will also hear argument on the motion fo r reconsideration of the Court's Order at Dkt. No. 321 precluding the recovery of disgorgement for Plaintiff's violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and for insufficient notice. The parties should be prepared to address wheth er, notwithstanding the failure to request disgorgement in the complaint, Defendants had sufficient notice that Plaintiffs could seek to recover disgorgement and present arguments and evidence about unjust enrichment. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 36 4, 7, 110, 130; see also Powell v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 364 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir.), opinion corrected, 511 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2004) ("Under Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court can grant any relief to which a pre vailing party is entitled, whether or not that relief was expressly sought in the complaint. The sole exception to this rule is where a court grants relief not requested and of which the opposing party has no notice, thereby prejudicing that party . In such case, unasked for relief should not be granted." (internal citations omitted)). No further submissions will be entertained prior to the hearing. SO ORDERED.( Status Conference set for 12/7/2021 at 09:00 AM before Judge Lewis J. Liman.) (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/23/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
328
OPINION AND ORDER: The motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/17/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
321
OPINION AND ORDER re: 317 LETTER MOTION for Discovery to Preclude Plaintiff's Newest Untimely-Disclosed Damages Theory addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Akiva M. Cohen dated November 13, 2021. filed by Andrew Wang. For the foregoing reasons, the letter motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 317. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/15/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
313
OPINION AND ORDER re: 300 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff's Untimely-Disclosed Damages Theory filed by Andrew Wang. For the foregoing reasons, the motion in limine is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 300. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/12/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
306
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the motions in limine are each granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. Nos. 251, 256. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion to renew the in limine motions at Dkt. No. 287. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/9/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
281
ORDER denying 234 Motion in Limine; denying 234 Motion to Preclude; denying 248 Motion for Sanctions; denying 251 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 256 Motion in Limine. As discussed with the parties on the May 27, 2021 telephone conf erence, the jury trial in this action is ADJOURNED for six (6) months until December 2021. The parties are required to file a joint letter on ECF providing an update on the status of settlement discussions every four (4) weeks, beginning with the first update on June 30, 2021. The Court will close the motions in limine, Daubert motion, and motion for an adverse jury instruction. If settlement discussions reach an impasse or settlement is not achieved, either party may move to reopen those mo tions, but the parties are precluded from making new motions or adding to the arguments in the motions already submitted. The parties also shall not be permitted to designate additional non-related expert witnesses. Within one month of the close of the six-month period, the parties shall renew their motions in limine, Daubert motion, or motion for an adverse jury instruction. The Court will be prepared to rule promptly on those motions. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to DENY and close Dkt. Nos. 234, 248, 251, and 256 as MOOT. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 6/2/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
278
ORDER: In connection with the Daubert hearing on May 19, 2021, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the order of witnesses and their examination, and to submit a proposed schedule to the Court by May 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. T he Daubert hearing shall last no longer than 2.5 hours. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court will decide upon a schedule. Also by May 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., the parties shall submit, via email or FTP, their exhibits to the Court and to opposing counsel. Exhibits that each side plans to use for purposes of cross-examination may be sent in a separate ex parte email or FTP link to the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 5/17/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
276
ORDER: A Daubert hearing is scheduled for May 19, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. on Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiff's expert, Patrick Regan. See Dkt. No. 234. The parties and the experts for each side, including Patrick Regan and Kenn eth J. Linsner, shall appear by Zoom videoconference. Each side shall have the right to elicit testimony from the expert for the other side with respect to the issues raised in the Daubert motion for no more than 30 minutes, with the othe r side having 30 minutes for rehabilitation. The Court will also hear argument on the motion. Parties will be provided log-in instructions for the Zoom video conference. The public can access the hearing through the Court's audio-only line by dialing 888-251-2909 and using access code 2123101. SO ORDERED. ( Daubert Hearing set for 5/19/2021 at 12:00 PM before Judge Lewis J. Liman.) (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 5/11/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
230
ORDER: As discussed at the status conference on December 11, 2020, the parties are directed to file pretrial motions by March 15, 2021, opposition briefs by April 12, 2021, and replies by April 26, 2021, and to also file the joint pretrial or der by April 26, 2021. Trial is scheduled for June 21, 2021. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for June 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. The parties are directed to engage in settlement discussions and shall submit a letter to the Court by Jan uary 22, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. as to the status of settlement discussions, including the number of sessions had and whether the parties seek referral to the S.D.N.Y. mediation program or Magistrate Judge Cott. (However, the parties shall not share w ith the Court the details of their settlement offers or the settlement discussions.) SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 3/15/2021. Pretrial Order due by 4/26/2021. Responses due by 4/12/2021. Replies due by 4/26/2021. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/10/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Lewis J. Liman.) (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 12/15/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
229
OPINION & ORDER re: 193 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Shou-Kung Wang, Andrew Wang; 215 MOTION to Strike Document No. 199 Plaintiffs Local Rule 56.1 Statement, filed by Shou-Kung Wang, Andrew Wang; 194 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant Andrew Wang, filed by Yien-Koo King. For the reasons stated herein, the motions for summary judgment are DENIED. Defendants' motion to strike is DENIED. A status conference is schedu led for December 11, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. Parties are directed to dial into the Court's teleconference at 888-251-2909, Access Code 2123101, and follow the necessary prompts. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 193, 194, 215. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 12/11/2020 at 02:30 PM before Judge Lewis J. Liman.) (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/23/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
111
OPINION & ORDER re: 90 MOTION to Strike Document No. 87 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 11, 12, and 14 as Frivolous and for Sanctions in the Form of Costs and Attorneys' Fees filed by Yien-Koo King, Kenneth King. For the foregoing reasons, the motion brought by Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant Y.K. King and Third-Party Defendant Kenneth King to strike or dismiss the Third- Party Complaint is moot. The part of their motion requesting this Court impose sanctions is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (ECF No. 90). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 10/31/2018) (anc)
|
|
Filing
74
OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiffs' remaining claims by May 31, 2018. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the m otion docketed at ECF No. 68. SO ORDERED. re: 68 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 65 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Jian Bao Gallery, Bao Wu Tang, Shou-Kung Wang, Andrew Wang. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 5/11/2018) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
65
OPINION & ORDER re: 61 LETTER MOTION to Reopen addressed to Judge John F. Keenan from Sam P. Israel dated 10/27/2017 filed by Yien-Koo King, Soon Huat, Inc., Northwich Investments, Ltd.; 54 MOTION for Reargument re : Notice to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error, filed by Yien-Koo King, Soon Huat, Inc., Northwich Investments, Ltd. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on the issue of Y.K. King's standing to bring claims on behalf of the Estate. The Court finds that Y.K. King has standing to pursue claims on behalf of the Estate, and that the RICO claims brought on behalf of the Estate are timely. The Cour t also holds that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims brought by Y.K. King on behalf of the Estate for conversion, common law fraud and conspiracy to defraud, and breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. However, the Court dismisses all state law claims brought by Northwich and Soon Huat as time-barred, and dismisses Plaintiffs' claims for replevin, constructive trust, and violations of New York Debtor and Creditor Law 67; 270 as falling under the probate exception to federal jurisdiction. Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiffs' remaining claims by April 27, 2018. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions docketed at ECF Nos. 54 and 61. SO ORDERED.
|
|
Filing
60
OPINION & ORDER re: 58 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Move to File a Second Amended Complaint addressed to Judge John F. Keenan from Sam P. Israel dated July 19, 2017 filed by Yien-Koo King, Soon Huat, Inc., Northwich In vestments, Ltd., 54 MOTION for Reargument re: Notice to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error, filed by Yien-Koo King, Soon Huat, Inc., Northwich Investments, Ltd. Accordingly, the Court reserves dec ision on Plaintiffs' motion for reargument until the Second Circuit renders a decision on Plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs' request for an extension to file a motion to amend is GRANTED and their time to move to amend is stayed pending the Second Circuit's decision. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 7/24/2017) (anc)
|
|
Filing
53
OPINION & ORDER re: 41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jian Bao Gallery, Bao Wu Tang, Shou-Kung Wang, Andrew Wang. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs� 39; claims are dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint, they shall move this Court to do so no later than August 1, 2017. Otherwise the Court will enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. T he Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 41. SO ORDERED. (Andrew Wang, Shou-Kung Wang, Jian Bao Gallery and Bao Wu Tang terminated.) (Amended Pleadings due by 8/1/2017.) (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 6/20/2017) (anc)
|
|
Filing
27
OPINION & ORDER re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jian Bao Gallery, Bao Wu Tang, Shou-Kung Wang, Andrew Wang: Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, but without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to refile their state-law claims in an appropriate state court. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 7/13/2015) (tn)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
