Ma v. Wang
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-06182
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ma v. Wang, Judge Gardephe required jurisdictional evidence before considering Ma’s requested injunction in aid of arbitration.
Hiu Ngai Ma, Song Wang, Jian Xiao, and the third-party transfer agent involved with the shares.
What happened
In Ma v. Wang, Hiu Ngai Ma claimed that Song Wang and Jian Xiao breached an agreement involving 5.1 million shares of Takung Art Co., Ltd. and RMB 140 million. She had begun arbitration in Beijing and asked the court to block transactions involving the shares while the arbitration proceeded.
The court said it could not grant an injunction unless it had personal jurisdiction—the legal authority to require the defendants to obey its orders—over Wang and Xiao. Ma had not provided facts showing that the court had that authority.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe did not rule on the requested injunction. He ordered that, if Ma wished to continue seeking that relief, she must submit additional evidence and legal briefing supporting personal jurisdiction by July 23, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.
The detailed version
- Ma v. Wang · No. 1:21-cv-06182
- Paul Gardephe
- July 21, 2021
Background
Hiu Ngai Ma alleged that Song Wang and Jian Xiao breached an agreement to transfer 5.1 million shares of Takung Art Co., Ltd. in exchange for RMB 140 million by failing to make required payments. Ma had initiated arbitration against the defendants before the Beijing Arbitration Commission. The opinion states that both defendants appeared to reside in China.
Ma petitioned for a temporary restraining order in aid of the arbitration, an order requiring the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and permission to serve those papers by an alternative method. She sought to prevent the defendants from transferring, selling, pledging, granting options on, or otherwise dealing with or disposing of certain shares involved in the arbitration. She also sought to prevent a third-party transfer agent from removing restrictions on transferring the shares.
Personal Jurisdiction
The court explained that it must have personal jurisdiction—authority over the defendants themselves—before it can issue an injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The court found that Ma had not pleaded facts showing that the court had personal jurisdiction over Wang and Xiao.
Order
The court did not grant or deny the requested injunctive relief. Instead, it ordered that, if Ma wished to pursue an injunction against the defendants, she must submit supplemental evidence and briefing establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction. The deadline was July 23, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.