King et al v. Wang et al, No. 1:2014cv07694 - Document 74 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
King et al v. Wang et al Doc. 74 USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED --------------------------------X DOC #: _________________ YIEN-KOO KING, : DATE FILED: 5/11/2018 NORTHWICH INVESTMENTS, COURT : UNITED STATES DISTRICT LTD., and SOON HUAT, INC., NEW YORK : SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF : -----------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiffs, : : No. 147831 (PAC) In re FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES 08 Civ. Civ. 7694 (JFK) -against: : LITIGATION 09OPINION (PAC) MD 2013 & ORDER : : ANDREW WANG, SHOU-KUNG WANG, : : OPINION & ORDER BAO WU TANG, JIAN BAO GALLERY, : -----------------------------------------------------------x ANTHONY CHOU, CHEN-MEI-LIN, WEI : ZHENG, YE YONG-QING, YUE DA-JIN,: and JOHN DOES 1-9, : : HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge: Defendants. : --------------------------------X 1 APPEARANCES FOR PLAINTIFFS YIEN-KOO KING, a boom in home financing which was fueled, among The early years of this decade saw NORTHWICH INVESTMENTS, LTD., and SOON HUAT, INC.: Sam P. Israel other things, by low interest rates and lax credit conditions. New lending instruments, such as Timothy Savitsky subprime mortgages (high credit risk loans) and Alt-A mortgages (low-documentation loans) FOR DEFENDANTS ANDREW WANG, SHOU-KUNG WANG, BAO WU TANG, and JIAN BAO GALLERY: kept the boom going. Borrowers played a role too; they took on unmanageable risks on the Carolyn J. Shields Ying Liu assumption that the market would continue to rise and that refinancing options would always be JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: available in the future. Lending discipline was lacking in the system. Mortgage originators did Before the Court is motion by Defendants Andrew Wang (“A. not hold these high-risk mortgage loans. Rather than carry the rising risk on their books, the Wang”), individually and doing business as Bao Wu Tang, and originators sold their loans into the secondary mortgage market, often as securitized packages Shou-Kung Wang (“S.K. Wang”), individually and formerly doing known as mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”). MBS markets grew almost exponentially. business as the Jian Bao Gallery (collectively, “Defendants”), But then the housing bubble burst. In 2006, the demand for housing dropped abruptly for reconsideration of the Court’s March 26, 2018 Opinion and and home prices began to fall. In light of the changing housing market, banks modified their Order granting in part a motion for reconsideration (the “March lending practices and became unwilling to refinance home mortgages without refinancing. 26 Order”) by Plaintiffs Yien-Koo King (“Y.K. King”), Northwich Investments, Ltd. (“Northwich”), and Soon Huat, Inc. (“Soon 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references cited as “(¶ _)” or to the “Complaint” are to the Amended Complaint, dated June 22, 2009. For purposes of this Motion, all allegations in the Amended Complaint are taken as true. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Huat”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is denied. I. Background Knowledge of the factual background of this case is presumed and discussed in detail in the March 26 Order; however, some discussion of the procedural history is warranted. On September 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 36 (filed Sept. 27, 2016).) On October 25, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on several grounds, including that Y.K. King lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of her father C.C. Wang’s Estate (the “Estate”). (See Defs.’ Mem. of L. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 42 (filed Nov. 10, 2016).) On June 20, 2017, the Court held that Y.K. King did not have standing to bring claims on behalf of the Estate because she had not been named executrix or administratrix of the Estate, as required to bring suit on behalf of a decedent’s estate under New York law. (See Op. & Order at 13-14, ECF No. 53 (filed June 20, 2017).) On July 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court overlooked facts and law in holding that Y.K. King did not have standing to sue on behalf of the Estate. (See Mot. for Reargument, ECF No. 54 (filed July 5, 2017).) On February 15, 2018, the Surrogate’s Court issued preliminary letters testamentary to Y.K. King and 2 appointed Y.K. King as preliminary executrix of the Estate. See Order for Preliminary Letters Testamentary, Probate Proceeding, Will of Chi-Chuan Wang, No. 2003-2250/I (N.Y. Surr. Ct. Feb. 15, 2018). On March 26, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, holding that Y.K. King’s appointment as preliminary executrix was “new evidence not available at the time” of the Court’s June 20, 2017 Opinion and Order, and under New York law, as preliminary executrix, Y.K. King now has standing to bring RICO claims on behalf of the Estate. (See Op. & Order, ECF No. 65 (filed Mar. 26, 2018).) On April 9, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 26 Order, arguing that the Court overlooked the language of the Surrogate Court’s Order that requires Plaintiff to “act jointly” with the Public Administrator. (See Defs.’ Mem. of L. in Supp. of Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 69 (filed Apr. 9, 2018).) II. Discussion Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The provision for reargument is not designed to allow wasteful repetition of arguments already briefed, considered and decided.” Schonberger v. Serchuk, 742 F. 3 Supp. 108, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). The major grounds justifying reconsideration are “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992). Local Rule 6.3 is intended to “ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party . . . plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.” S.E.C. v. Ashbury Capital Partners, No. 00 Civ. 7898 (RCC), 2001 WL 604044, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2001). A court must “narrowly construe and strictly apply Local Rule 6.3 so as to avoid duplicative rulings on previously considered issues and to prevent the Rule from being used to advance different theories not previously argued.” Fisk v. Letterman, 501 F. Supp. 2d 505, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Defendants argue that in holding that Y.K. King has standing to sue on behalf of the Estate, the Court overlooked the language in the Surrogate’s Court Order that Y.K. King “shall act jointly with the Public Administrator of New York County, who will continue to act as temporary administrator of the estate.” Order for Preliminary Letters Testamentary, Probate Proceeding, Will of Chi-Chuan Wang, No. 2003-2250/I (N.Y. Surr. Ct. Feb. 15, 2018). Defendants contend that this language indicates that Plaintiff has no standing to sue on behalf of the 4 Estate unless she is joined in her suit by her co-fiduciary, the Public Administrator. (Defs.’ Mem. at 4.) Defendants’ motion is without merit. The Public Administrator has expressly consented to Y.K. King’s “advancement of the instant claims brought on behalf of the Estate” and stated that Y.K. King, as “Preliminary Execut[rix] has the capacity and authority to advance claims seeking relief on behalf of the Estate.” (Damas Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 71-1 (filed Apr. 23, 2018).) Indeed, Defendants’ own motion cites In re Estate of Jacobs for the proposition that “[w]here there are only two fiduciaries . . . the consent of both fiduciaries is required to exercise a joint power.” 127 Misc. 2d 1020, 1022 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1985) (emphasis added). The Public Administrator has consented to Y.K. King bringing claims on behalf of the Estate in this action. This action has been pending since 2014 and the Court has now considered arguments relating to Defendants’ motion to dismiss three times. The motion has been extensively briefed and argued, including two motions for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court will not consider further objections or motions for reconsideration with respect to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 5 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendants shall file an answer to remaining claims by May 31, 2018. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 68. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York May / J , 2 018 6 //frw f John F. Keenan United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
