Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-09221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan v. Qin, Judge Failla dissolved the stay so petitioners could immediately enforce their judgment.
Petitioners may immediately enforce the judgment against Respondent, Hui Qin. The order removes the temporary enforcement protection that otherwise would have applied under Rule 62(a).
What happened
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin, the court considered petitioners’ unopposed request to end the temporary pause on collecting or enforcing a judgment. The court had already confirmed an arbitration award and entered judgment for petitioners.
Petitioners argued that Hui Qin had transferred ownership of a New York home to relatives for ten dollars after the arbitration began, creating a risk that assets could be hidden or dissipated. Hui Qin did not oppose the motion or request more time to respond.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the risk justified ending the automatic stay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a). The court dissolved the stay and permitted petitioners to immediately enforce the judgment.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 28, 2022
Background
On September 26, 2022, the Court granted Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and confirmed an arbitration award issued against Respondent in a 2020–2021 Chinese arbitration. The Court entered judgment for Petitioners on October 11, 2022.
Petitioners then filed an unopposed motion to dissolve the automatic stay on enforcing or collecting the judgment. Rule 62(a) generally pauses enforcement for 30 days, unless the court orders otherwise. The purpose of the temporary stay is to give the losing party time to obtain a bond or other security while considering an appeal. The rule also permits the court to end the stay when accelerated enforcement is needed to protect the winning party’s interests, including when there is a risk that the judgment debtor will dissipate assets.
Parties’ Positions and the Court’s Analysis
Petitioners alleged that Respondent had already moved valuable assets to protect them from a potential judgment. In particular, they alleged that Respondent transferred ownership of his home in Old Westbury, New York, to his ex-mother-in-law and ex-wife for ten dollars through transactions occurring shortly after the arbitration began in China. Respondent did not contest those allegations.
The Court stated that the timing of the transactions and the minimal payment suggested that the transfer was not made for genuine business purposes. The Court also considered Respondent’s failure to participate in the motion. After the Court ordered Respondent to file any opposition by October 24, 2022, Respondent neither opposed the motion nor requested an extension.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla found a well-founded risk that Respondent was concealing, or would conceal, assets to avoid collection if the stay remained in place. The Court therefore dissolved the automatic stay imposed by Rule 62(a), permitted Petitioners to immediately enforce the judgment at docket entry 46, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 49. This order addressed enforcement of the judgment and did not reconsider the earlier summary-judgment ruling or the confirmation of the arbitration award.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.