Ma v. Wang
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-06182
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ma v. Wang, Judge Gardephe denied both a stay-or-reconsideration motion and an expedited temporary-restraining-order motion.
Hui Ngai Ma's requests to pause or reconsider the September 23 ruling and to temporarily prevent the transfer of the shares were denied; the defendants' planned transfer was not restrained by these motions.
What happened
In Hui Ngai Ma v. Song Wang and Jian Xiao, the court had denied a preliminary injunction on September 23, 2021, while leaving the case open in anticipation of a motion to pause that ruling during an appeal. Ma's counsel said that shares would be transferred unless the court intervened and that Ma was seeking emergency provisional relief from the Beijing Arbitration Commission.
Ma asked the court to expedite consideration of the stay motion and temporarily block the transfer of the shares while that motion and the Beijing application were pending. The requests were based on the argument that selling the shares could make the requested arbitration relief ineffective.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied both applications for the same reasons given during the September 23 hearing. The court also stated that Ma's notice of an interlocutory appeal had removed the court's authority over the action while the appeal was pending, except where a rule or statute preserved authority. The clerk was directed to terminate both motions.
The detailed version
- Ma v. Wang · No. 1:21-cv-06182
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 28, 2021
Background
On September 23, 2021, the court denied Ma's motion for a preliminary injunction but kept the case open in anticipation of a motion to stay that ruling pending appeal. According to Ma's emergency letter, a defendant had instructed vStock Transfer, Takung's stock transfer agent, to transfer the shares at issue to the defendant's broker by September 28 unless further judicial intervention occurred. Ma was also seeking emergency provisional relief from the Beijing Arbitration Commission, where the underlying arbitration was pending.
Motions
Ma filed a motion to stay the September 23 ruling pending appeal or, alternatively, to reconsider that ruling. Ma also moved to expedite consideration of that application and requested a temporary restraining order preventing the transfer of the shares while Ma sought provisional relief from the Beijing Arbitration Commission.
The letter argued that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7502(c), together with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, permitted provisional relief to preserve the effectiveness of a potential arbitration award. Ma contended that, if the shares were transferred or sold, the Beijing application seeking an injunction against their sale could become ineffective.
Court's reasoning
The court's endorsement states that both applications were denied for the same reasons explained on the record at the September 23 hearing. The opinion text provided here does not reproduce those reasons. Regarding reconsideration, the court stated that Ma had filed a notice of an interlocutory appeal and that the notice removed the district court's authority over the action while the appeal was pending, except to the extent a statute or rule expressly preserved that authority.
Disposition
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied both motions: the motion to stay the September 23 ruling pending appeal or to reconsider it, and the motion to expedite and obtain a temporary restraining order pending the Beijing Arbitration Commission application. The clerk was directed to terminate Docket Nos. 45 and 47.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.