The Dah Sing Banking Group Limited is a Hong Kong-based bank with headquarters in Wan Chai. It has been listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange since 2004. The company has a strong reputation for providing high-quality financial services in Hong Kong. It also boasts a large number of branches around the world.
Zurich filed untimely supplemental opposition to Dah Sing’s motion to dismiss
Zurich filed an untimely supplemental opposition to Dah Seng’s motion to dismiss on a number of grounds. First, it asserted personal jurisdiction over Dah Sing based on the Federal Security Act of 2000, or FSIA, which is a part of 28 U.S.C. SS 1602-1611. Zurich then supplemented its assertion of personal jurisdiction with a claim that Dah Sing committed the tort in New York.
Zurich’s arguments on the merits are compelling, even if they are untimely. The Court must consider the timing of Zurich’s filing and the timing of its supplemental opposition to Dah Sing’S motion to dismiss.
Zurich argues that Dah Sing issued the credit cards, but failed to properly serve Wan. Hence, the Clerk of Court closed the case. Alternatively, Dah Sing also asserts that the plaintiff failed to serve Wan with the lawsuit.
The Amended Complaint also asserts that Dah Sing has a correspondent banking agreement with Union Bank of New York, Inc. and has a New York representative office. This arrangement enables Dah Sing to conduct international trade online.
Zurich moved to dismiss claims for lack of personal jurisdiction
In its brief, Zurich argues that it has personal jurisdiction over Dah Sing Bank under the FSIA. The FSIA protects foreign states from lawsuits filed in the U.S., including those involving “commercial activities.” The Act also defines a “butterfly” defendant as an agent or instrumentality of a foreign state. Zurich argues that its claim against Dah Sing arose from business transactions conducted in New York.
Zurich’s complaint alleges that Dah Sing altered two hundred and fifty-six checks in its name. However, this evidence was not presented in the court. The court held that Zurich did not provide sufficient discovery to establish personal jurisdiction.
The Second Circuit in Daou noted that foreign financial institutions must carefully examine the relationship between the correspondent accounts held in New York and plaintiff claims brought in New York. Nevertheless, the Dah Sing Bank and Union Bank did not satisfy these requirements. Thus, the court found that the plaintiffs had not served their claims on Dah Sing Bank.
Zurich argues that the District Court erred when it dismissed the claims on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction. This court holds that the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the court has personal jurisdiction over Dah Sing. The bank also argues that it only issues credit cards to Hong Kong-based customers.