King et al v. Wang et al
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)
Case 1:09-md-02013-PAC Document 57
Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 45
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
APPEARANCES
BACKGROUND1
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
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.
Pla~ntiffs'
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
//frw f ~;
~ John F. Keenan
United States District Judge
6
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.
Why Is My Information Online?