Melissa Yang Attorney

First Admitted: 2009, New York

Professional Webpage: https://melissayangpllc.com/attorneys/melissa-yang/

Bar/Professional Activity:

Trustee on the Board of the Federal Bar Council
Co-Membership chair of the FBC American Inn of Court
Co-Membership Chair of the Federal Bar Council’s Inn of Court
New York
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Verdicts/Settlements (Case Results):

Settled action under New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law against individual defendant accused of gender discrimination and retaliation. , 2024
Negotiated voluntary dismissal of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment action against two individuals and company based in California that was litigated in the Southern District of New York., 2024
I represented CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI) Ltd. and CRCM SPAC Opportunity Fund (collectively, "CRCM") in an action against Getty Images, Inc. ("Getty") based on Getty's refusal to allow CRCM to exchange Getty warrants held in exchange for Getty common stock. CRCM prevailed on summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Getty and was awarded a judgment worth $51 million plus interest. , 2023

Honors/Awards:

Named as a “Rising Star” by ALM’s New York Law Journal, 2015
SuperLawyers, SuperLawyers, 2024
Perfect 10/10 Avvo rating
Selected for Inclusion in New York Metropolitan Edition of Super Lawyers – Rising Stars, 2014 – 2023

Educational Background:

Binghamton University, B.A.

Scholarly Lectures/Writings:

Diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is one way for parties to obtain entry into federal court. When the case in controversy exceeds $75,000, federal courts have jurisdiction if the action is between “citizens of different States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), or between “citizens of a State and citizens and or subjects of a foreign state,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). In Jane Doe v. Grace Baptist Church, 2022 WL 1490486 (N.D.N.Y. May 11, 2022), the Northern District of New York addressed the application of these provisions to a party with dual citizenship in the U.S. and Greece and found that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a dual citizen of the United States and Greece, married a Greek citizen, had been residing in Greece since 2017, intends to reside indefinitely in Greece, and wishes to rely her citizenship in Greece for purposes of establishing diversity of citizenship. The Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), reasoning that in matters of diversity jurisdiction a party’s American citizenship will apply, 2022 WL 1490486, at *1, and that therefore the plaintiff was not a “citizen or subject of a foreign state[.]” Recognizing that a circuit split exists on this issue, the court nonetheless concluded that it was bound by Second Circuit precedent, which makes clear that plaintiff’s U.S. citizenship is determinative. Id. The court also noted that plaintiff’s stated intention to relinquish her U.S. citizenship was of no moment; the fact that she had not yet done so was dispositive. Similarly, the court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This is because, as a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, the plaintiff is among a class of people who “are neither citizens of any state of the United States or subjects of a foreign state.” Id. at *2 (quoting Herrick Co., Inc. v. SCS Commc’ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir. 2001).) Hence, Section 1332(a)(1) cannot be applied to confer diversity jurisdiction in a case involving the plaintiff, because she is not considered a citizen of any state. She is known as a “stateless citizen.”, Kicked Out of Federal Court: How Stateless Citizens Fall Outside of Diversity of Citizenship, 2022
The parties in Berardi v. Berardi, Case No. 22-CV-00159, are the owners of certain companies that provide public transportation services throughout New York State and other surrounding areas under various trade names including Trailways and Coach. The parties entered into a post-nuptial agreement providing that upon dissolution of their marriage, plaintiff would own 49% of the companies and defendant would own 51%. The parties were divorced in 2009., Declaratory Judgment Claim Dismissed on Ripeness Grounds Where Too Many Contingent Events Exist for Plaintiff to Show Actual or Threatened Imminent Harm, 2023
The Second Circuit’s recent decision in McQuillin v. Hartford Life Insurance and Accident Ins. Co., 35 F.4th 416 (2d Cir. 2022), serves as a reminder that plan administrators are required to comply strictly with the claims procedure regulations set forth at ERISA § 503 and 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1. The claimant in McQuillin sought long-term disability benefits after suffering from side effects of prostate cancer treatment. The administrator of the long-term disability plan denied the claim on the grounds that the plan did not have enough information to evaluate the disability. Consistent with ERISA, the initial denial letter informed the claimant of his right to appeal the decision and that the administrator would provide a final benefits decision within 45 days of the appeal. The letter also stated that if the claimant disagreed with the decision on appeal, he had the right to seek judicial review by commencing an action under ERISA., Recent Second Circuit Decision Reminds Parties to Strictly Comply with ERISA’s Claims Procedure, 2022
As a matter of first impression, the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court in LCX AG v. 1.274M U.S. Dollar Coin, 2022 WL 3585277 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 2022), authorized defendants to be served through an alternative form of service using cryptocurrency. The LCX AG action concerned the theft of approximately $8 million in virtual assets. Defendants’ identities were unknown, but plaintiff had knowledge of the blockchain wallet used to hold the stolen funds. Because service under CPLR 308(1), (2), (3), and (4) was impracticable, plaintiff sought to serve defendants pursuant to CPLR 308(5) by depositing a small amount of new crypto coins into the wallet at issue. These crypto service coins would include a hyperlink to a website that contained the pleadings and motions filed in the action. The hyperlink also had a mechanism to track when a person clicked on the link. Recognizing that it had broad discretion to fashion alternative forms of service based on the facts before it, the Court found the use of the crypto service coins to serve defendants was proper and consistent with due process. Id. at *6. Defendants’ location was unknown, and plaintiff had demonstrated that defendants regularly used the blockchain wallet and had used it as recently as May 31, 2022. Id. at **6, 8. Plaintiff also showed that the wallet contained nearly $1.3 million, and it was likely defendants would return to the wallet where they would find the crypto service coins. Id. at *8. At bottom, the Court noted that the method of service need not guarantee that notice be given to the intended recipient, only that it “be reasonably calculated” to apprise defendants of the action. Id. at **6–7. Based on the information provided by plaintiff, the Court found that the crypto service coins satisfied this requirement., Alternative Form of Service Using Cryptocurrency Approved by Commercial Division, 2022
As illustrated in Eagle Advance, LLC v. Relik, 2022 NY Slip Op. 33006(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty 2022), injunctive relief is an equitable remedy – one that may be denied based on the movant’s unconscionable conduct. In Eagle Advance, LLC, the parties had entered into a contract whereby plaintiff purchased a portion of defendant Relik Realty’s future receivables, entitling plaintiff to receive 25% of payments deposited into a certain bank account owned by Relik Realty at Wells Fargo. Relik Realty’s owner, also a defendant, personally guaranteed the contract. During the contract’s performance period, defendants Relik Realty and its owner cut off plaintiff’s access to the Relik Realty account at Wells Fargo and defendants made no further payments under the contract. In response, plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that restrained all of defendants’ bank accounts at Wells Fargo. Thereafter, when the court considered whether to grant a preliminary injunction to restrain the funds at Wells Fargo during the pendency of the action, defendants supported their opposition with a submission of threatening, offensive text messages from plaintiff’s principal that suggested plaintiff had sought to use the pervasive restraint of defendants’ accounts at Wells Fargo to strong-arm defendants into making the contractual payments. Id. at 4. The messages included “I’m going to have a judge … freeze your account” and “Should I file a lawsuit now since you’re complete broke [sic] this will go against you your [sic] business and personally. Or should I call your accounts receivable?” Id. The court found these text messages lend credence to defendants’ argument that plaintiff was a predatory lender rather than a business providing a service. Offended by plaintiff’s apparent attempt to use the court’s power improperly, the Court denied the preliminary injunction and vacated the TRO on the grounds that plaintiff’s actions reflected unclean hands. Id. at 4–5., Court Vacates Injunction Because Pre-Litigation Threats to Use Court Constitutes Unclean Hands, 2022
Pre-action discovery is a specialized tool available in New York courts that can be used to preserve evidence or identify potential defendants. This tool was effectively used in DarkPulse, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., Index No. 159015/2022, in New York Supreme Court, New York County. In DarkPulse, the petitioners, DarkPulse, Inc. (“DarkPulse”) and its CEO, sought pre-litigation disclosure concerning two Twitter accounts that were used to publish tweets calling the CEO a criminal and to assert that DarkPulse and its CEO were engaged in securities fraud and money laundering. Petitioners argued that these tweets were designed to cause DarkPulse shareholders to sell their stock, and they sought the identity of the two Twitter users so that a defamation suit could be brought against them. The court granted this disclosure, concluding that petitioners established their right to a “meritorious cause of action” – i.e., the defamation claim – and that the information sought – i.e., information concerning two Twitter accounts – was material and necessary to bring a viable lawsuit., Petitioners Obtain Pre-Litigation Disclosure into the Owners of Twitter Accounts Used to Publish Defamatory Statements, 2022
As illustrated in a decision by the New York Supreme Court in Five Star Logistics LLC v. Innovasian Cuisine Enters. Inc., Index No. 653357/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 22, 2022), a New York choice of law provision, standing alone, will not confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In Five Star Logistics LLC, plaintiff, a Florida logistics company, brought a breach of contract action in New York against defendant, a Washington-based corporation that sells Asian food products to grocery and convenience stores, based on the New York choice of law provision in the parties’ contract. Defendant, in turn, moved to dismiss, arguing that, absent a forum selection clause, it lacked sufficient contacts to New York to be compelled to litigate in New York. The court agreed and dismissed the action., New York Choice of Law Provision, Standing Alone, Does Not Confer Personal Jurisdiction, 2022
The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) embodies a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration. When the existence of an arbitration agreement is undisputed, any doubts as to whether a claim falls within the scope of that agreement should be resolved in favor of arbitrability. Despite the broad reach of the FAA, a recent decision issued in Salgado v. NYC Medical Practice P.C. d/b/a Goals Aesthetics & Plastic Surgery, 22-CV-06910(LAK)(SN), 2022 WL 17974915 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2022) illustrates that claims may bypass arbitration if the agreement providing for arbitration need not be considered to determine if such claims are meritorious., Arbitration Clause Does Not Apply When Consideration of Agreement Is Not Necessary to Determine the Merits of Claims, 2023
After a dispute arose over the ownership of the “Stargazer,” a six-thousand-year-old marble statuette, the Republic of Turkey commenced an action in the Southern District of New York seeking the return of Stargazer, alleging claims for conversion and replevin against auction house Christie’s, Inc., as the possessor, and Michael Steinhardt, as the owner. According to Turkey, the figurine was unlawfully excavated and smuggled out of its borders. Following an eight-day bench trial, the district court held that Turkey failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it owned Stargazer, and that, in any event, the defendants established the equitable defense of laches. Turkey appealed., Turkey’s Conversion and Replevin Action to Recover 6,000-Year-Old Statute Denied for Failure to Show Ownership and for Sleeping on Rights, 2023

Contact Melissa

All the below fields are required