Aixiang Kong v. Wing Yin Lau, Cheong Wah So, Dajin Realty, Inc., and Steven Thomas Gee

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants defendants’ motion to dismiss Aixiang Kong’s Second Amended Complaint. The court rejects claims for abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and civil conspiracy, concluding that the claims are precluded in part by res judicata and otherwise fail to state plausible claims. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and leave to amend is denied as futile.

Holdings

1. Claims based on events from 2013 through 2023 that were or could have been raised in Plaintiff's prior action against the same defendants were precluded by res judicata.
2. The district court could not review or invalidate the merits of the Queens Housing Court's judgments and warrants of eviction, and the court treated those judgments as valid for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
3. The Second Amended Complaint failed to state an abuse-of-process claim because the allegations did not show that Defendants used regularly issued legal process with an unjustified intent to harm or to obtain a collateral objective outside the legitimate ends of the process.
4. The Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it did not adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct, intent to cause severe emotional distress, or causation.
5. The false-imprisonment claim failed because Defendants were not the arresting officers, the complaint did not allege that the information provided to police was actually false, and police independently acted on information concerning Plaintiff's presence at the property.
6. The civil-conspiracy claim failed because New York law permits recovery for civil conspiracy only when an underlying tort is independently actionable, and Plaintiff failed to state any of the underlying tort claims.
7. Further leave to amend was denied because amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims based on events that were or could have been litigated in Plaintiff's prior federal action were barred by res judicata.
2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint stated a plausible claim for abuse of process under New York law.
3. Whether the Second Amended Complaint stated a plausible claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law.
4. Whether the Second Amended Complaint stated a plausible claim for false imprisonment based on Defendants' report to the police.
5. Whether the civil-conspiracy claim could proceed absent an actionable underlying tort.
6. Whether Plaintiff should be granted further leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed