Ameriway Corporation v. Chen
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-09407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Ameriway Corporation v. Chen, Judge Broderick granted Ameriway’s request to stay document discovery until resolving its motions for default judgment and dismissal.
Ameriway Corporation, Chen, Ability Customs Inc., and their attorneys are affected by the order because document discovery is paused while Ameriway’s motion for default judgment and dismissal is pending.
What happened
Ameriway Corporation v. Chen concerns Ameriway’s request to pause document discovery in a dispute involving five cargo containers and an alleged lien asserted by Chen. The filing says Ameriway sued in 2019, claiming Chen did not have a valid contractual right to hold the cargo.
Ameriway argued that discovery should be paused because it accused Chen and her counsel of submitting fabricated lien documents and emails. These accusations were Ameriway’s allegations in its request; the order excerpt does not independently resolve them.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application and ordered that document discovery be stayed until the court resolved Ameriway’s motion for default judgment and dismissal.
The detailed version
- Ameriway Corporation v. Chen · No. 1:19-cv-09407
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
The opinion text is a letter from Ameriway Corporation’s attorney requesting a stay of document discovery in a case identified as involving Ameriway Corp., May Yan Chen, and Ability Customs Inc. The filing states that Ameriway’s five cargo containers were seized in August 2019 over money allegedly owed on earlier shipments. Ameriway brought claims including conversion and argued that Chen lacked a valid contractual lien right to detain the cargo.
The filing describes a dispute over two lien documents. Ameriway alleged that Chen’s attorney, William Shayne, manufactured a document called “Terms and Conditions of Service,” later referred to as the TCS, and that Chen and her counsel relied on it in the case. Ameriway also alleged that Chen later submitted a second document, called the “’94 Terms,” and three email exhibits supporting it. Ameriway argued that electronic evidence showed the emails were fabricated, including because one email allegedly referred to a Customs and Border Protection enforcement date that was not publicly announced until months later and because forensic reviewers identified irregularities in the emails’ formatting.
These allegations appear in Ameriway’s request for relief. The excerpt does not provide a separate merits ruling determining whether Chen or her counsel actually fabricated evidence.
Request and ruling
Ameriway asked the court to stay, or pause, document discovery until the court resolved its pending motion for default judgment and dismissal based on alleged misconduct involving the court. Ameriway also referred to its request to disqualify Chen’s counsel. The filing argued that continuing discovery would waste the parties’ and court’s resources while those issues remained pending.
The court’s order states: “APPLICATION GRANTED.” It further orders that “[d]ocument discovery shall be stayed pending a resolution of Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment and Dismissal.” The excerpt does not state the outcome of the motion for default judgment and dismissal or decide the underlying lien, conversion, or evidence-related disputes.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.