Opinion
16 Civ. 4013 (LGS)
06-09-2022
MEIDE ZHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIANG ZHANG, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a pre-motion letter seeking a conference regarding a motion for the aid of the Court in enforcing the judgment against Defendants (Dkt. 361), and on April 20 and 22, 2022, Defendants filed two pre-motion letters for a conference regarding a motion for contempt and to compel compliance by Plaintiffs' counsel David Yan with the corrected judgment of sanctions against him (Dkt. Nos. 362, 366). On April 21, 2022, Defendants also prematurely filed a formal motion for contempt and to compel compliance with the sanctions judgment (Dkt. Nos. 363-365), which was denied without prejudice (Dkt. No. 367);
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2022, Plaintiffs and Mr. Yan moved for a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from taking certain actions to collect the judgment against Mr. Yan;
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2022, Defendants filed a letter in response to Plaintiffs' premotion letter (Dkt. No. 373), and on April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs and Mr. Yan filed a letter in response to Defendants' pre-motion letter (Dkt. No. 375);
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Mr. Yan's application for a temporary restraining order, and then stayed all proceedings pending the resolution of Mr. Yan's appeals from the judgment of sanctions against him and from related orders (Dkt. No. 377);
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2022, the Second Circuit affirmed, by summary order, the judgment against Mr. Yan and related orders. The mandate has not yet issued. It is hereby
ORDERED that the stay at Dkt. No. 377 is LIFTED, except as it pertains to any proceedings or other efforts to satisfy the sanctions judgment by levying or seizing the assets of Mr. Yan's law offices. The Court takes no position at this time on the merits of Mr. Yan's argument that such assets are not subject to the execution on the judgment. Defendants are not to take any actions to change the status quo with respect to those assets pending further Order of the Court. A separate order will issue referring to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave the parties' disputes over enforcement of orders and judgments, including the anticipated motions discussed in the parties' pre-motion letters at Dkt. Nos. 361, 362, 366, 373 and 375.