King v. Wang
- Lewis Liman
- 1:14-cv-07694
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In King v. Wang, Judge Liman scheduled a hearing on evidence and a motion seeking reconsideration of an earlier order.
The parties to King v. Wang, including Yien-Koo King and Andrew Wang and the other defendants, were affected because they were required to prepare for the scheduled hearing and could not submit further materials beforehand.
What happened
In King v. Wang, the court scheduled a December 7, 2021 hearing about whether Artron and Artnet records may be admitted as evidence.
The court also said it would hear arguments about reconsidering an earlier order that barred recovery of disgorgement related to the plaintiff’s violation of a disclosure rule and lack of notice. The court did not decide those issues in this order.
Judge Liman directed the parties to address whether the defendants had enough notice that the plaintiff might seek disgorgement and present evidence about unjust enrichment. He said no further written submissions would be accepted before the hearing.
The detailed version
- King v. Wang · No. 1:14-cv-07694
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 23, 2021
Order and scheduled hearing
The court ordered a hearing under Federal Rule of Evidence 104, which governs preliminary questions about whether evidence may be admitted. The hearing was scheduled for December 7, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., and concerned the admissibility of records from Artron and Artnet.
Motion for reconsideration
The court also stated that it would hear argument on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier order, identified as Dkt. No. 321. That earlier order had precluded recovery of disgorgement based on the plaintiff’s violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and insufficient notice.
The parties were directed to address whether, even though the complaint did not request disgorgement, the defendants had sufficient notice that the plaintiff could seek that relief and present arguments and evidence concerning unjust enrichment. The court cited the rule that a court may award relief to which a prevailing party is entitled even if the complaint did not expressly request it, except when the opposing party lacked notice and would be prejudiced.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny the motion for reconsideration, decide whether the Artron or Artnet records were admissible, or resolve the dispute over disgorgement. Judge Lewis J. Liman directed the parties to be prepared for the hearing and stated that no further submissions would be entertained before it.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.