On May 23, 2017 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Sang Cheol Woo,
and
Charles C. Spackman,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(212) 849-7216
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
November 9, 2017
VIA NYSCEF and U.S. MAIL
Hon. O. Peter Sherwood
Supreme Court Chambers
New York County Court House
60 Centre Street
Part 49, Room 252
New York, NY 10007
Re: Sang Cheol Woo v. Charles C. Spackman, Index No. 652795/2017
Dear Honorable Justice Sherwood:
I represent Defendant Charles C. Spackman (“Spackman”) in the above-referenced matter.
I write to update the Court on recent developments in other related actions. Because these matters
are presently ongoing and bear directly on whether summary judgment is proper at this juncture, I
provide this letter for the benefit of the Court and to provide further clarity as to these issues in a
timely fashion.1
Earlier this week, on November 7, 2017, the Hong Kong court considering Plaintiff’s
earlier-filed enforcement action (which also seeks to enforce the Korean judgment) stayed those
enforcement proceedings in light of the Korean retrial proceedings. (Ex. A, 11/7/2017 Letter from
the Hon. L. Wong J, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Case No. HCA
1586 / 2016.) Judge Wong stayed Plaintiff’s enforcement action “[t]o avoid any further potential
wastage of time and costs.” (Ex. A ¶ 9.) Plaintiff made precisely the same argument in the Hong
Kong action that he made here – namely that the retrial proceedings should be ignored as an
1
“[I]t is well-settled that, notwithstanding CPLR 22124, trial courts have broad discretion to accept or
reject supplemental briefings as part of their inherent authority to regulate motion practice before them.”
Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc., 2015 WL 140039, at *1 (Sup. Ct. NY Cnty. Jan. 5, 2015) (citations omitted); Vazquez
v. Beharry, 919 N.Y.S.2d 336 (1st Dep’t 2011); accord Seventh Jam Dev. LLC v. Rosenberg, 2009 WL
6405229 (Sup. Ct. NY Cnty. Sept. 15, 2009) (Sherwood, J.) (“Although sur-reply papers are not provided
for under the CPLR, it is this Court’s preference to decide cases on the merits upon a complete record.”).
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | HOUSTON | SEATTLE
LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG | BRUSSELS | ZURICH | PERTH
improper and meritless attempt to delay enforcement. (Id. ¶ 2; see Pl’s Reply Br., NYSCEF Doc.
No. 48, at 2-3.) The Hong Kong court did not accept this position and stayed the Hong Kong
proceedings pending the upcoming hearing in the Korean retrial proceeding, as “a decision in
favour of the Defendant” in the Korean retrial proceedings “would render this [enforcement]
action nugatory.” (Id. ¶ 3) (emphasis added). The court recognized that that it was “clear” that
“the Retrial Application has progressed” as a “first hearing took place before the Seoul High Court
on 19 October 2017” and “[a] further hearing has been scheduled for 23 November 2017.” (Id. ¶
4.) In light of the progress of the Korean retrial proceedings and their potential to moot the related
enforcement action, the court found that “it seems sensible to await the outcome of the hearing on
23 November 2017.” (Id. ¶ 8.)
Judge Wong’s decision to stay enforcement proceedings in light of the ongoing Korean
retrial proceedings supports Mr. Spackman’s position that this matter is not ripe for summary
judgment. Mr. Spackman respectfully asks that this Court, similar to what the Hong Kong court
did in granting a stay, reject Mr. Woo’s request to prematurely enforce a default judgment that is
actively undergoing retrial in Korea.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick D. Curran
cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
2
Document Filed Date
November 09, 2017
Case Filing Date
May 23, 2017
Category
Commercial Division
Status
Disposed, Motion Pending
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. (212) 849-7216 WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com November 9, 2017 VIA NYSCEF and U.S. MAIL Hon. O. Peter Sherwood Supreme Court Chambers New York County Court House 60 Centre Street Part 49, Room 252 New York, NY 10007 Re: Sang Cheol Woo v. Charles C. Spackman, Index No. 652795/2017 Dear Honorable Justice Sherwood: I represent Defendant Charles C. Spackman (“Spackman”) in the above-referenced matter. I write to update the Court on recent developments in other related actions. Because these matters are presently ongoing and bear directly on whether summary judgment is proper at this juncture, I provide this letter for the benefit of the Court and to provide further clarity as to these issues in a timely fashion.1 Earlier this week, on November 7, 2017, the Hong Kong court considering Plaintiff’s earlier-filed enforcement action (which also seeks to enforce the Korean judgment) stayed those enforcement proceedings in light of the Korean retrial proceedings. (Ex. A, 11/7/2017 Letter from the Hon. L. Wong J, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Case No. HCA 1586 / 2016.) Judge Wong stayed Plaintiff’s enforcement action “[t]o avoid any further potential wastage of time and costs.” (Ex. A ¶ 9.) Plaintiff made precisely the same argument in the Hong Kong action that he made here – namely that the retrial proceedings should be ignored as an 1 “[I]t is well-settled that, notwithstanding CPLR 22124, trial courts have broad discretion to accept or reject supplemental briefings as part of their inherent authority to regulate motion practice before them.” Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc., 2015 WL 140039, at *1 (Sup. Ct. NY Cnty. Jan. 5, 2015) (citations omitted); Vazquez v. Beharry, 919 N.Y.S.2d 336 (1st Dep’t 2011); accord Seventh Jam Dev. LLC v. Rosenberg, 2009 WL 6405229 (Sup. Ct. NY Cnty. Sept. 15, 2009) (Sherwood, J.) (“Although sur-reply papers are not provided for under the CPLR, it is this Court’s preference to decide cases on the merits upon a complete record.”). quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp LOS ANGELES | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | HOUSTON | SEATTLE LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG | BRUSSELS | ZURICH | PERTH improper and meritless attempt to delay enforcement. (Id. ¶ 2; see Pl’s Reply Br., NYSCEF Doc. No. 48, at 2-3.) The Hong Kong court did not accept this position and stayed the Hong Kong proceedings pending the upcoming hearing in the Korean retrial proceeding, as “a decision in favour of the Defendant” in the Korean retrial proceedings “would render this [enforcement] action nugatory.” (Id. ¶ 3) (emphasis added). The court recognized that that it was “clear” that “the Retrial Application has progressed” as a “first hearing took place before the Seoul High Court on 19 October 2017” and “[a] further hearing has been scheduled for 23 November 2017.” (Id. ¶ 4.) In light of the progress of the Korean retrial proceedings and their potential to moot the related enforcement action, the court found that “it seems sensible to await the outcome of the hearing on 23 November 2017.” (Id. ¶ 8.) Judge Wong’s decision to stay enforcement proceedings in light of the ongoing Korean retrial proceedings supports Mr. Spackman’s position that this matter is not ripe for summary judgment. Mr. Spackman respectfully asks that this Court, similar to what the Hong Kong court did in granting a stay, reject Mr. Woo’s request to prematurely enforce a default judgment that is actively undergoing retrial in Korea. Respectfully submitted, Patrick D. Curran cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF) 2