Song v. Que

Background

Lihua Song asserted two claims against Wenbin Que: a fraudulent-conveyance claim seeking to unwind transfers involving ownership interests in two California properties, and a claim seeking to enforce an arbitration award against assets in the district.

Que challenged the service of process and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court addressed both motions.

Service of Process

The court granted the motion to quash service. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, Song had not established that Que was properly served.

Song left a copy of the summons and complaint at a Byron Street address. The court held that she had not shown that the address was Que’s “dwelling or usual place of abode,” or even that Que resided in the United States. The allegations that Que’s son lived at the property and that Que might once have owned it were insufficient, particularly because filings in the related Hong Kong action referred to a Hong Kong residential address for Que.

The court also found that Song had not shown compliance with the Hague Service Convention or another internationally agreed method for serving a person abroad. Although Song stated that she mailed a service packet to the Hong Kong office of one of Que’s lawyers, she did not identify a law authorizing that method of service. The court therefore found the attempted service ineffective.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It held that jurisdiction existed for both claims.

For the fraudulent-conveyance claim, Song sought to undo transfers of ownership interests in two California properties that Que allegedly executed in California. The court held that this was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

For the arbitration-award enforcement claim, Song identified assets in the district against which she sought to enforce the award. The court held that this also provided a sufficient basis for jurisdiction over Que.

Que argued that the properties were not his assets because his wife alone purchased and owned them. The court applied California’s presumption that property acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in California is community property. Because Que had not disputed that the presumption applied or otherwise rebutted it, the court held that Song had done enough to withstand the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to quash service and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.