Standard Chartered Bank v Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Standard Chartered Bank v Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co. 2013 NY Slip Op 32312(U) September 24, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 653506/11 Judge: Ellen M. Coin Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2013 1] INDEX NO. 653506/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 163 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2013 " SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART~ HON. ELLEN M. COIN Justice Index Number: 653506/2011 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK INDEX NO. _ _ _ __ vs MOTION DATE _ _ __ AHMAD HAMAD AL GOSAIBI AND MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __ Sequence Number: 003 QUASH SUBPOENA . The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ , were read on this motion to/for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Notice of MotionfOrder to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits _ _ _ _ _ _--'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Replying Affidavits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I NO(S) ¢. _~/"--_ __ I No(s). _--,2...,...._ __ I No(s). -~J~--- Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is ,...~ < . ¢ (..,·r v ····I'·i/'5) ARE MOTiON .f4.NO GRO:::.ci-l\i:u I I V -.. \... NEXEO DECiDED iN ACCORDANCE WITH AN DECISION AND ORDER. w u i= C/) => .., o t- O W 0::: 0::: W u. W 0::: ~~ ...J Z t- « => 0 u. C/) u w W ~ 0::: (!) W Z 0::: C/) - W C/) « u 3: 0 ...J ...J 0 u. Z ~ o i= o ::!!E t0::: 0 u. 1. CHEC::::: ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ J ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , J.S.C. liON. ElLI;N CASE DISPOSED 0 0 GRANTED 0 SETTLE ORDER DDO~OTPOST M r.t\I~\ ·LJN6N.ftNJ.d.~MJOSITION DENIED o GRANTED IN PART 0 o SUBMIT ORDER o FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0 OTHER REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: lAS PART 63 - _________________________________________ x STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor, Index No. 653506/11 -againstAHMAD HAMAD AL GOSAIBI AND BROTHERS COMPANY, DAWUD SULEIMAN HAMAD AL GOSAIBI, WAFA SULEIMAN HAMAD AL GOSAIBI, WASAL SULEIMAN HAMAD AL GOSAIBI, YOUSEF HAMAD AL GOSAIBI, ABDOULMOHSIN AHMED AL GOSAIBI, SAMIHA AHMED AL GOSAIBI, IBTISAM AHMED AL GOSAIBI, INTISAR AHMED AL GOSAIBI, BAHIYA ABDOULLAH AL GOSAIBI, SAAUD ABDOULAZIZ, NAJAT ABDOULAZIZ AL GOSAIBI, SIHAM ABDOULAZIZ AL GOSAIBI, SUAAD ABDOULAZIZ AL GOSAIBI, SAHAR ABDOULAZIZ AL GOSAIBI, SAMAH ABDOULAZIZ AL GOSAIBI, YASMIN MOHAMMED DIAUDIN KUNCH, WALID KHALID AHMED HAMAD AL GOSAIBI, ABDOURAHMAN KHALID AHMED HAMAD AL GOSAIBI, and DANA KHALID AHMED HAMAD AL GOSAIBI, Defendants-Judgment Debtors. ,--------------------------------------------x ELLEN M. COIN, A.J.S.C.: Defendant-judgment debtors (Debtors) move, pursuant to CPLR 2304, for an order quashing plaintiff-judgment creditor's subpoenas duces tecum and information subpoenas with restraining notice. Plaintiff-judgment creditor (Standard Chartered) cross-moves for an order compelling compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum and the information subpoenas,and awarding Standard Chartered costs pursuant to CPLR 5224 (a) (3). Standard Chartered commenced this action, Article 53, in order to register a judgment pursuant to CPLR that it obtained against Debtors in the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution, 1 a [* 3] court in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The facts underlying the action are set forth in this court's December 12, 2012 decision and order, As the parties and will be summarized here only as necessary. agree, the dispositive issue as to the main motion is whether this court has personal jurisdiction over Debtors, pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) . provides~ CPLR 302(a) in relevant part, that "As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary ... who ... 1. transacts any business within the state .. .. " Accordingly, in order to exercise jurisdiction over Debtors, this court must find that they transacted business in New York, and that Standard Chartered's cause of action in the underlying action arose from such transaction. It cannot seriously be disputed that Debtors have transacted, and continue to transact, business in New York. Hamad Al Gosaibi and Brothers Company (AHAB), Defendant Ahmad a Saudi Arabian general partnership, of which the individual defendants are general partners, has purposefully used the courts of, and in, this State in multiple instances. & Bros. Co. (101 In Mashreqbank PSC v Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2012]), AHAB asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff and also commenced a thirdparty action. In Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi Bros. Chartered Intl. (USA) Ltd. filed Oct. 2010]), banks, 25, (No. 10 Civ 1080 [JSR] Co. v Standard [SD NY, petition AHAB seeks discovery from four New York pursuant to 28 USC §1782. 2 In In re Intl. Banking Corp. [* 4] (No. 09-17318 [SMB] [Bankr SD NY filed Dec, 14,2009]), AHAB B.S.C. appeared in a.dministrator order of to The oppose the application International of the external Banking Corporation, B. S. C. (TIBC) for permission to issue a subpoena for documents pertaining to an AHAB bank account at Bank of America (which AHAB, apparently, does not control), unless AHAB discovery provided to TIBC. was permitted access to any Such affirmative use of the courts satisfies the requirement of transacting business. See Andrew Greenberg, Inc. v Sirtech Can., Ltd., 79 AD3d 1419, 1423 (3d Dept 2010) . The court now turns to the "arising from" prong. In the underlying action in Bahrain, Standard Chartered alleged that it had entered into a currency swap agreement with AHAB, pursuant to which Standard Chartered would transmit 93,738,750 Saudi riyals to AHAB, in exchange for $25 million, transmi tted the Saudi riyals, AHAB. and that in April 2009, it but did not receive payment from In its defense, AHAB contended that the signatures on AHAB documents concerning the proposed swap had been forged by Maan Abdoulwahid Al Sanea, who was in charge of AHAB's Money Exchange Company, and who, them his to after receiving the Saudi riyals, personal account. The Bahrain court transferred found that signatures on the AHAB documents had indeed been forged, but held AHAB liable on the supervising Al Sanea. ground that AHAB had been negligent in AHAB's litigation in New York is aimed at discovering the extent of Al Sanea's alleged frauds, for which AHAB may be liable, and at recovering the sums that he allegedly stole. 3 I [* 5] In Licci v Lebanese Can. Bank, SAL (20 NY3d 327, 341 [2012]), the Court of Appeals formulated the minimum relationship that must exist between the plaintiff's cause of action and the defendant's transaction of business to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the non-domiciliary defendant: "where at least one element [of the cause of action] arises from the New York contacts, the relationship between the business transaction and the claim asserted supports specific jurisdiction under the statute." Here, no underlying element action of Standard could Chartered's have arisen from complaint AHAB's in the litigation acti vi ties in New York, because AHAB commenced those acti vi ties only after April when Standard Chartered's 2009, underlying action arose. 'Moreover, litigation in New York prior to claim in the even had AHAB commenced its that date, there could be no conceivable argument that Standard Chartered's claim arose from such litigation. To be sure, there is an overlap between the transaction that gave rise to Standard Chartered's claim and the claims that AHAB has raised in its New York litigation, but that overlap consists of Al Sanea's alleged actions in New York, not any business that AHAB, or the individual defendants, transacted in New York. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion of defendants to quash the subpoenas duces tecum and the information subpoenas that have been served upon them is granted; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff's cross-motion to compel compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum and the information subpoenas is 4 [* 6] denied. ' Dated: September 24, 2013 ENTER: Ellen M. Coin, A.J.S.C.

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.