Mazlin Trading Corp and Shireen Maritime Ltd v WJ Holding Ltd - Strubrick Limited - Yuri Drukker - United States District Court Southern District of New York Case No 19-CV-97652 - Memorandum Opinion and Order Judge Laura Taylor Swain - 26 March 2021
Petitioners Mazlin Trading Corp. ("Mazlin") and Shireen Maritime Ltd. ("Shireen" and collectively, the "Petitioners") have filed a petition (docket entry no. 1, the "Petition"), pursuant to the United Nations Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 1957, which was acceded to in the United States on December 29, 1970 (the "New York Convention") and is implemented by Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. section 201, to confirm and enforce a pair of related arbitration awards (the "Awards") issued by the London Court of International Arbitration ("LCIA") rendered in their favor against Respondents WJ Holding Ltd. and Strubrick Limited (collectively, the "Entity Respondents"). Petitioners further seek temporary restraints and preliminary injunctive relief, asserting, in addition to a claim for confirmation of the Awards, state law claims for injunctive relief, turnover of monies, violation of the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, NY Debtor Creditor Law section 276, conversion, and alter ego liability against the Entity Respondents and Respondent Yuri Drukker ("Mr. Drukker" and collectively, "Respondents). (See Petition ¶¶ 38-66). Respondents move to dismiss the Petition pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to stay merits discovery pending the Court's decision on the motion to dismiss; their motion also provides notice of application of foreign law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. (See docket entry no. 47, the "Motion.") The Petitioners oppose the motion, and have filed a cross-motion to confirm the Awards. (See docket entry no. 49, the "Opp.").
The Court has original jurisdiction of Petitioners' Petition to confirm the Awards pursuant to 9 U.S.C. section 203, and supplemental jurisdiction of the Petitioners' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367. The Court has reviewed thoroughly all of the parties' submissions in this action. For the following reasons, Respondents' motion to dismiss the Petition is granted, Petitioners' cross-motion to confirm the Awards is denied as moot, and Respondents' motion to stay merits discovery is also denied as moot.