Case 1:12-Cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------- x LAN SANG Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 12-CV-07103 (JPO) -against- MING HAI and LAW OFFICE OF MING HAI, P.C. NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------- x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the Memorandum of Law dated November 21, 2012, the Declaration of Dianna D. McCarthy dated November 21, 2012, with all Exhibits annexed thereto, and upon all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, the Defendants Ming Hai and Law Office of Ming Hai, P.C. (collectively “Defendants”) will move this Court at the United States Courthouse, located at, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 on a date and at a time designated by the Court, for an Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 2 a claim upon which relief may be granted, or in the alternative to transfer and consolidate this action with the pending action in Civil City Court of New York, Queens County, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: New York, New York November 21, 2012 WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP Attorneys for Defendants Ming Hai and Law Office of Ming Hai, P.C. By: /s/ Dianna McCarthy . Dianna D. McCarthy (DDM - 5099) Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP 45 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 221-6900 (212) 221-6989 (facsimile) - 2 - Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9-1 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------- x LAN SANG Civil Action No.: 12-CV-07103 (JPO) Plaintiff, DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS -against- MING HAI and LAW OFFICE OF MING HAI, P.C. Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------- x DIANNA D. MCCARTHY declares, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and subject to the penalties of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1. I am a member of the firm Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP, attorneys for Defendants Ming Hai and Law Office of Ming Hai, P.C. (“Defendants”) and as such, am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of the within action as revealed by the contents of the files maintained in our office. 2. I make this declaration to place before the Court certain documents relied upon by Defendants in their Memorandum of Law in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. 3. A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint in the instant action, filed on or about October 9, 2012 is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A.” 4. A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint titled Sang Lan v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., et. al. Docket No. 11-CV-2870, filed on or about May 13, 2011 is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B.” Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9-1 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 2 5. A true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in Ming Hai & Ming Hai, P.C. v. Lan Sang, Docket No. CV-078233-11/QU, dated on or about August 23, 2011 is annexed hereto as Exhibit “C.” 6. A true and correct copy of the Order to Show Cause to Vacate the Default in the Ming Hai & Ming Hai, P.C. v. Lan Sang, Docket No. CV-078233-11/QU matter, dated on or about January 24, 2012 is annexed hereto as Exhibit “D.” 7. A true and correct copy of the e-Court docket sheet from the Ming Hai & Ming Hai, P.C. v. Lan Sang, Docket No. CV-078233-11/QU matter is annexed hereto as Exhibit “E.” WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative transfer this case to Civil Court of the City of New York in Queens County, award Defendants costs and fees in connection with this motion, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: New York, New York November 21, 2012 WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP Attorneys for Defendants Ming Hai and Law Office of Ming Hai, P.C. By: /s/ Dianna McCarthy . Dianna D. McCarthy (DDM - 5099) Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP 45 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 221-6900 (212) 221-6989 (facsimile) - 2 - Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9-3 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------- x LAN SANG Civil Action No.: 12-CV-07103 (JPO) Plaintiff, -against- MING HAI and LAW OFFICE OF MING HAI, P.C. Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------- x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP Attorneys for the Defendants Ming Hai and Law Office of Ming Hai, P.C. th 45 Broadway, 19 Floor New York, New York 10006 (212) 221-6900 On the Brief: Dianna D. McCarthy Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9-3 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preliminary Statement ………………..…………………………………………………….1 Statement of Facts …………………………..……………………………………………...2 Argument …………………………..……………………………………………………….4 Point I – Standard of Review ……………………………………………………….4 Point II – Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Defamation Must be Dismissed ….. 5 for failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted a. Expressions of Opinion Never Constitute Defamation …………………8 b. Pleading Libel Requires Pleading Entitlement to Special Damages …...11 c. Fair and True Reports of Judicial Proceedings are Non-Actionable …...13 Point III – Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Breach of NY Civ. Rights ……...14 Law §§ 50-51 Must be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted Point IV – Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ………..17 Must be Dismissed for failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted Point V – Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Tortious Interference with ………19 Contractual Relations Must be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted Point VI – In the Alternative this Case Should be Transferred to the Civil Court…..21 of the City of New York, County of Queens a. “First-Filed” Rule ………………………………………………………..21 b. Venue is Proper in the Civil Court of the City of New York, …………...22 Queens County Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………...23 Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9-3 Filed 11/21/12 Page 3 of 29 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 1, 4, 5, 23 New York Civil Rights Law §50-51. 1, 14, 16, 17 New York CPLR § 602(a) 22 New York CPLR § 3211(a)(4) 22 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 766 (1979). 19 800-Flowers, Inc. v. Intercontinental Florist, 860 F. Supp. 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 21 Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 612 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). 14 American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Assoc., Inc. v. Lafarge 21 North America, Inc., 474 F.Supp.2d. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). 5 Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster,, 85 N.Y.2d 373 (N.Y. 1995). 7 Arrington v. New York Times Co., 55 N.Y.2d 433, cert denied 459 U.S. 1146 (1983). 14 Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592 (1985). 6, 7 Becher v. Troy Pub. Co., 183 A.D.2d 230 (N.Y. 1992)). 13 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 4, 6 Beverley v. Choices Women's Medical Center, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 745 (N.Y. 1991). 15, 16, 17 Biro v. Conde Nast, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112466 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Brennan Ctr. For Justice at N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law v. United States DOJ, 2012 U.S. 17, 18 App. LEXIS 19685 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2012). Burck v. Mars, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 14 Case 1:12-cv-07103-VEC-DCF Document 9-3 Filed 11/21/12 Page 4 of 29 Brian v. Richardson, 87 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1995) 9 Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 3 N.Y.3d 182 (2004). 19 Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000). 6, 7, 11 Cerasani v. Sony Corp., 991 F. Supp. 343 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). 15 Cholowsky v. Civiletti, 69 A.D.3d 110 (2d Dep’t 2009). 13, 14 Creel v. Crown Publishers, Inc., 115 A.D.2d 414 (1st Dep’t 1985). 16 Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34 (1st Dep’t 1999). 7 Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Publishing Co., 7 N.Y.2d 435 (N.Y. 1960). 11 Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., 7 N.Y.2d 276 (N.Y. 1959). 15, 16 Gristede’s Foods, Inc. v. Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Nation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6 111675 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009). Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146 (1993). 8, 9, 12 Guard-Life Corp. v. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 183 (1980). 19, 20 Hargrove v. Clark Equipment Co., 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20969 (S.D.N.Y.