Chen v. Zhang
1:24-cv-09050
| S.D.N.Y. | Nov 25, 2024Background
- Plaintiff May Chen, owner of Ability Customs Brokers in Oakland, California, provided customs brokerage services to defendants between 2017 and 2019.
- Defendants are Xiyan Zhang, Eagle Trading USA LLC, and Ameriway Corporation; Zhang acted as a representative for both companies.
- Disputes arose when Chen claimed she was owed $380,567.23 for unpaid invoices by late 2019; payment plans were discussed but no agreement reached.
- Prior and parallel litigation on the same facts began in 2019 in the Southern District of New York, featuring overlapping parties and issues.
- Chen subsequently brought claims in California state court, which defendants removed to federal court and moved to transfer to New York under the first-to-file rule.
- Chen did not oppose the motion to transfer, instead moving to amend her complaint to add a non-diverse defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should be transferred under the first-to-file rule | None (no response filed; argued for amendment) | The New York action was first filed, involves similar parties and issues, making transfer proper | Transfer granted to S.D.N.Y. under first-to-file rule |
| Whether the cases in CA and NY involve substantially similar parties and issues | None (no response) | Both actions concern the same core dispute and parties | Court found substantial similarity |
| Whether equitable exceptions (bad faith, forum shopping, convenience) preclude transfer | None (no response) | No such exceptional circumstances apply; plaintiff has already litigated in NY | No exception warranted; transfer appropriate |
| Whether plaintiff’s procedural tactics (delay, non-opposition) matter | Court noted pattern of non-response in related actions | Highlighted as further support for transfer | Transfer justified; non-opposition noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods. Inc., 946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991) (sets standard for application of first-to-file rule)
- Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982) (articulates threshold factors for first-to-file rule)
- Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015) (applies substantial similarity standard for parties and issues in first-to-file analysis)
- Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979) (judicial comity and conservation of resources; partially overruled on other grounds)