Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li
2015 WL 5707135, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131567, 135 F. Supp. 3d 87 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A U.S. federal court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign nonparty bank to compel compliance with a Rule 45 subpoena, consistent with New York's long-arm statute and constitutional due process, if the bank purposefully availed itself of the forum by transacting business within New York with an 'articulable nexus' to the discovery requests, and the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. International comity, balanced using Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442 factors, does not bar disclosure when the U.S. interest in enforcing its laws outweighs speculative foreign legal hardships.
Facts:
- Gucci America, Inc. (Gucci) is a distributor of luxury handbags, clothing, jewelry, fragrances, and home products.
- Around June 2010, Gucci discovered that various Defendants were offering for sale on the internet counterfeit versions of Gucci’s products.
- Defendants wired the proceeds of these counterfeit sales to accounts at the Chinese headquarters of Bank of China (BOC).
- BOC owns multiple real properties and maintains two branches staffed with employees in New York.
- BOC’s Head Office opened a correspondent account at JPMorgan Chase Bank in New York to facilitate transfers directly from Chase customers to BOC customers.
- BOC marketed its New York branches as the “principal U.S. dollar clearing channel of BOC worldwide” and “the first choice of U.S. dollar wire transfers to and from China.”
- Defendants utilized BOC nearly a dozen times to transfer U.S. dollar-denominated funds, which Gucci alleges are ill-gotten gains, from the United States to China.
- Chinese courts (the Beijing Intermediate People’s Court and the Higher People’s Court of Beijing Municipality) later ruled in a private civil suit between BOC and some Defendants that BOC unlawfully froze those Defendants’ bank accounts and ordered BOC to resume providing banking services to them. These judgments acknowledged BOC's contractual rights to suspend services under certain conditions but found BOC failed to prove those conditions were met.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 25, 2010, Plaintiffs Gucci America, Inc. and its affiliates initiated a trademark infringement action against various Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- On July 12, 2010, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction, freezing Defendants’ assets and enjoining them from manufacturing or selling counterfeit goods, and restraining any banks with notice from transferring Defendants' assets, also requiring third parties to produce documents responsive to subpoenas.
- Gucci served a subpoena on Bank of China (BOC) on July 16, 2010 (the “2010 Subpoena”) and a second subpoena on February 23, 2011 (the “2011 Subpoena”), both requesting account documents related to Defendants.
- On August 23, 2011, the District Court granted Gucci’s motion to compel BOC to comply with the 2010 Subpoena and the asset freeze, and denied BOC’s cross-motion to modify the Injunction.
- On September 12, 2011, the District Court denied BOC’s motion for leave to appeal and request for an additional twenty-one days to comply.
- BOC subsequently produced documents for only two identified accounts and refused to produce information regarding other accounts held by Defendants.
- On November 30, 2011, BOC filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s August 23 Order, based on a letter from Chinese banking regulators regarding Chinese bank secrecy laws.
- On May 18, 2012, the District Court issued an order denying BOC’s motion for reconsideration.
- BOC appealed the District Court’s August 23 and May 18 Orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (appellant BOC, appellee Gucci).
- On September 17, 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction but vacated the District Court’s orders compelling BOC’s compliance, remanding the case for the District Court to reconsider specific personal jurisdiction over BOC and comity in light of a recent Supreme Court decision (Daimler AG v. Bauman) and recent Chinese court decisions.
- On December 1, 2014, Gucci filed the present motion to compel BOC’s compliance with the 2010 and 2011 Subpoenas in the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a U.S. District Court have specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign bank, and is the exercise of such jurisdiction consistent with principles of international comity, to compel it to comply with subpoenas seeking account information located in its foreign branches, when the foreign bank has New York branches, maintains a correspondent account in New York, and facilitated transfers of alleged counterfeit proceeds through that New York account for the defendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Richard J. Sullivan
Yes, the U.S. District Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Bank of China and exercising such jurisdiction is consistent with principles of international comity, thus compelling BOC to comply with the subpoenas. The court found a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1), which requires transacting business in New York and the cause of action arising from that transaction. BOC transacted business by maintaining New York branches and actively using a New York correspondent account to facilitate global U.S. dollar transfers for its clients, including the Defendants. This deliberate and recurring conduct in New York, which directly enabled the alleged counterfeiting scheme's financial transactions, established purposeful availment and an “articulable nexus” to Gucci’s discovery requests, consistent with Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL. The "separate entity rule" does not bar enforcement of a subpoena against the bank as a whole. Constitutionally, BOC had sufficient "minimum contacts" with New York through its purposeful availment, and these contacts were a "but for" cause of Gucci’s subpoenas because the alleged illicit funds were transferred via BOC’s New York correspondent account. The exercise of jurisdiction was also "reasonable," as determined by balancing the Bank Brussels Lambert factors: the burden on BOC was minimal (it had an active New York presence and was familiar with U.S. litigation), New York had a strong interest in providing redress for its resident plaintiffs and enforcing federal intellectual property laws, Gucci had a strong interest in obtaining crucial discovery documents, and judicial efficiency favored resolving the dispute in the familiar U.S. forum. Finally, the court reaffirmed its comity analysis under Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442. The recent Beijing judgments did not establish a strong national policy in China against disclosure, nor did they show that BOC would face significant, non-speculative hardship by complying. Instead, the court concluded that China’s bank secrecy laws conferred an individual privilege, and the U.S. interest in enforcing the Lanham Act outweighed BOC's speculative claims of foreign legal liability.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the broad reach of U.S. discovery powers over foreign banks with a significant U.S. presence, particularly in trademark infringement cases involving complex international money transfers. It reinforces that a foreign bank’s deliberate and repeated utilization of the U.S. banking system (e.g., correspondent accounts) for transactions directly related to alleged illegal activity can establish specific personal jurisdiction, even if the requested information is physically located abroad. The decision emphasizes that U.S. courts may prioritize U.S. interests in enforcing intellectual property laws and facilitating effective discovery over speculative claims of foreign legal hardship or comity concerns, especially when foreign judgments do not establish a strong, unyielding national policy against disclosure.
