Tang v. Qiao
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-08760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tang v. Qiao, Judge Ho set deadlines for opposition and reply before deciding a motion concerning the Geng Defendants’ counterclaim.
The order directly affected the Geng Defendants and John Y. Tang by setting deadlines for opposition and reply concerning Tang’s motion to dismiss the Geng Defendants’ counterclaim.
What happened
In Tang v. Qiao, John Y. Tang sued fourteen named defendants and one Jane Doe defendant. Several defendants had answered or filed motions to dismiss, while deadlines for five defendants remained postponed.
Tang moved to dismiss the Geng Defendants’ counterclaim. The Geng Defendants had not filed an opposition when the court reviewed the docket.
Judge Dale E. Ho allowed the Geng Defendants until May 17, 2024, to file an opposition and allowed Tang until May 24, 2024, to reply. If no opposition was filed, the court would treat Tang’s motion as ready for decision and adjudicate it.
The detailed version
- Tang v. Qiao · No. 1:23-cv-08760
- Ho
- May 6, 2024
Background
John Y. Tang filed a complaint against fourteen named defendants and one Jane Doe defendant on October 5, 2023. The answer-or-response deadline for HSBC Canada, HSBC Holdings PLC, UBS AG Singapore Branch, UBS Group AG, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited was postponed until further order of the court. Jianjun Qiao, Shilan Zhao, and Yuxin Qiao, also spelled Yixin Qiao, had answered. Six other defendants had filed motions to dismiss.
The Geng Defendants—Geng & Associates, P.C., Ting Geng, and Sylvia P. Tsai—had filed an answer that included a counterclaim. Tang moved to dismiss that counterclaim on March 8, 2024. The court’s docket review indicated that the Geng Defendants had not filed an opposition.
Court’s Order
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered that the Geng Defendants could file an opposition by May 17, 2024. If they did so, Tang could file a reply by May 24, 2024. If no opposition was received, Tang’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim would be treated as fully submitted and decided.
The opinion also explains that although the Geng Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed after their answer and therefore was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), the court would treat it as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court stated that the two motions use the same legal standard. This order did not decide Tang’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim or the other pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.