Shandong Yuyuan Logistics Co., Ltd v. Soleil Chartered Bank et al, No. 1:2017cv09421 - Document 26 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION re: 20 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Cmplaint filed by Soleil Chartered Bank, Govind Srivastava, Soleil Capitale Corporation. For the foregoing conclusions, the motion for the Defendants to dismiss the Complaint is granted without prejudice. Shandong is granted twenty (20) days to replead. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/28/2018) (anc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shandong Yuyuan Logistics Co., Ltd v. Soleil Chartered Bank et al Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------ x SHANDONG YUYUAN LOGISTICS, CO ., LTD, Plaintiffs , 17 Civ. 9421 (RWS) - against OPINION SOLEIL CHARTERED BANK , SOLEIL CAPITALE CORPORATION , and GOVIND SRIVASTAVA, Defendants . -------------------------------------------x APPEARANCES: Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAI & ASSOCIATES , P.C. 1500 Broadway, 22 nd Floor New York , New York 10036 By : Bernard C. Daley , Esq. Attorney for Defendants PEYROT & ASSOCIATES , P.C. 62 William Street , 8 th Floor New York , New York 1 0005 By : David C. Van Leeuwen, Esq. Dockets.Justia.com Sweet, D.J. Defendants Soleil Chartered Bank ("SCB") , Soleil Capitale Corporation ("SCC") , and Govind Srivastava ("Srivastava") (collectively , the "Defendants" ) have moved pursuant to Federal Ru les of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1), and 12(b) (6) to dismiss the complaint Shandong Yuyuan Logistics, Co., Ltd. ("Complaint") 12(b) (5) , of plaintiff ("Shandong" or the "Pl aintiff") , arising out of a letter of credit issued by SCB ("Letter of Credit") . Based upon the conclusions set forth below, the motion is granted. I. Facts & Prior Proceedings The Complaint sets forth the following facts, which are assumed true for the purpose of this motion to dismiss. Koch v . Christie's Int'l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 Shandong , a Chinese corporation , (2d Cir. See 2012) . filed the Complaint on December 1, 2017 , alleging diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 against SCB, a bank registered in the Union of Comoros , resident. sec, a New York corporation, and Srivastava, a New York See Compl . 1-6. 1 The Complaint alleges five causes of action arising ou t of a Letter of Credit in the amount of $345,000 issued for the benefit of Shandong in order to secure a sale of cargo of urea (the " Cargo " ) to Radha International Corporation ("Radha"). Id. 9. Plaintiff alleges the Letter o f Credit was made payable upon the delivery of certain documents, including bills of lading (the "Documents"), to the SCB office at 55 Wall Street, New York. Id. On October 27 , 20 16, SCB sent notice from sec notifying Plaintiff that SCB had rejected the Documents f or a discrepancy, and that SCB would hold the Documents until receipt of "disposal instructions." Id. 10. On November 25, 2016, Plaintiff sent Defendants notice that Radha had accepted the discrepancy, and Plaintiff requested that SCB complete the transaction. Id . 11. On three occasions in early December 2016, Plaintiff informed Defendants that Radha had taken delivery of the Cargo, and Plaintiff again requested payment from Defendants under the Letter of Credit. Id. 12. On December 22 and 29, 2016, Plaintiff requested Defendants return the Documents. Id. 13. On December 29, 2016, Defendants informed Plaintiff via email that Radha did n ot have the funds to pay "taxes, duties, shipment costs," and t hat Defendants instead paid $45,000 on behalf of Radha and t ook ownership of 2 the Cargo. Id. ':II 14. On January 4, 2017, Defendants told Plaintiff that they had stored the Cargo on a warehouse, and were trying to sell it on Plaintiff's behalf. Id. ':II 15. The following day, Plaintiff requested that Defendants either return the Documents or fulfill payment under the Letter of Credit. ':II Id. 16. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendants delivered the Documents to the shippers, took delivery of the Cargo on November 13, 2016 , and sold the Cargo in exchange for payment. Id. ':ll':ll 17-18. Defendants have made payments to Plaintiff totaling $106,000, but have failed to provide an accounting or disclosure of the underlying sales or transactions, or the outstanding $238,080 of Cargo that Defendants took possession of in connection with the Letter of Credit. Id . ':ll':ll 19-20. Plaintiff alleges claims for see id. ':ll':ll 21-26 ; ( 1 ) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, see id . ':ll':ll 27 - 33; see id. ':ll':ll 34-39; (3) (4) failure to provide an acc o unting of transactions, see id . ':ll':ll 40-43; and ( 5) deceptive acts and practices in violation of New York General Business Law§ 349(a), see id. ':ll':ll 44-47. 3 The instant motion of the Defendants was heard and marked fully submitted on March 14, 2018. II. The Applicable Standard "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b) (1) when the district c o urt lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). "In resol v ing a mo tion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (1), the district court must take all unc o ntroverted facts in the complaint (o r petition) as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction." Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014). However, "where jurisdictional facts are placed in dispute, the court has the power and obligation to decide issues of fact by reference to evidence outside the pleadings." Id. "A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists." Makarova, 2 01 F.3d at 113. 4 III. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is Granted The threshold question presented on this motion is whether subject matter jurisdiction exis t s to withstand dismissa l. (interna l See Ashcroft v . I qbal , 556 U. S . 662 , citations omitted) 671 (2009) (" Subject - matter ju risdiction cannot be forfeited or waived and s h ould be considered when fairly in doubt ." ) . In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction , "the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety ," including any pendent state -l aw c l aims . Arbaugh v . Y&H Corp ., 546 U. S . 500 , 515 (2006). The basic sta t utory grants of federal subject matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U. S . C . § 1331 , which provides f or federal - question jurisdiction , and 28 U. S . C . § 1332 , which establishes diversity of cit i zenship jurisdiction . Id. at 513 . I n its Complaint , Pl aintif f a ll eges the Co ur t diversity jurisdiction over this act i on . See Compl . has 5. Section 1332 provides that "[ t]he district cour t s sha l l have origina l jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75 , 000 , exclusive of i nterest and costs , and is between . c i tizens of different States . " 28 U. S . C . § 1332(a) (1). A " party seeking to i nvoke 5 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bears the burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete." Herrick Co v. SCS Commc'ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2001) . Here, Compl. at 7 Plaintiff has requested $238,080 in damages, see 3 , such that there is no dispute that the amount in controversy requirement o f 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is satisfied. See Hall v . EarthLink Network , Inc., 396 F.3d 500, 506 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that "for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy is established as of the date of the complaint") . As to the diversity of citizenship requirement, the parties dispute whether SCB is a citizen of New York sufficient to satisfy this inquiry. See Compl. 6; Defs.' Br. 6-7. Relevant here, the Second Circuit has provided that "[w] hile 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2) permits diversity jurisdiction in cases between ' citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state,' . that diversity is absent where there are foreign parties on both sides of the case." Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 73 (S .D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2)) ; see also Bayerische Landesbank, N .Y. Branch v . Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 6 692 F . 3d 42, 49 (2d Cir . 2012) (diversity jurisdiction lacking "where the only parties are foreign entities, or where on one side there are citizens and aliens and on the opposite side there are only aliens.") . " For jurisdictional purposes , a corporation is deemed to be a citizen both of the state in which it has been incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business . " Advani Enters. , Inc . v . Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F . 3d 157 , 161 (2d Cir . 1998) (c i ting 28 U. S.C. § 1332(c)). A corporation ' s "'principal place of business ' is best read as referring to the p l ace where a corporation ' s officers direct, control , and coordinate the corporat i on ' s activities, . i . e ., the ' nerve center ,' and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings [ .] ". Hertz Corp . v . Friend , 130 S.Ct . 1181 , 1 192 (2010 ) . It is uncontested that Plaintiff i s a Chinese entity with its principal place of business at Northwest Corner of Tauyuyuan Street and Gaowu Road , Comprehensive Free Trade Zone , Weifang , People's Republic of China. See Compl. 1 . However , the parties dispute whether SCB is a citizen o f the Union of Comoros or of New York . See Compl . 6; Defs . ' Br . 6 - 7. Plaintif f does not a l lege that SCB is incorporated or has its principal place of business in New York (or any other state) , 7 , . but instead provides that it "is a bank registered in Union of Comoros with an office at 55 Wall Street , Suite 530 , New York , NY ." Compl. i 2. As noted above, such allegations are insufficient to satisfy diversity, and therefore, subject matter jurisdiction. See Advani Enters., Inc., 140 F. 3d at 160 (finding that no "subje ct -matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S . C. § 13 32 because [plaintiff] ' s pleadings do not demonstrate that the parties are completely diverse ." ) . Dismissal is required. See Universal Licensing Corp ., 293 F.3d at 581 (affirming dismissal where diversity was lackin g because action was solely between foreign parties) . IV. Conclusion For the forego i ng conclusions, the motion for the Defendants to dismiss the Complaint is granted without prejudice . Shandong is granted twenty (20) days to replead . It is so orde red. New York, NY June 2018 if[ U . S.D.J. 8
]]>
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.
