Case ID: f-appx_570/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JINGHONG SONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YAO BROS. GROUP LP, Chengwan Yao, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 13-2752-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 20, 2014.
    Kevin K. Tung, Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing, NY, for Appellant.
    Richard E. Hershenson, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, CHESTER J. STRAUB and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to conform with the above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Eaton, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Jinghong Song appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Eaton, J.), finding in favor of defendants Yao Bros. Group LP and Chengwan Yao on all three of Song’s claims. Song suffered losses on investments managed by Yao, and alleged that (i) Yao failed to disclose to Song that he traded futures and options without properly registering with regulatory authorities, (ii) Yao misrepresented the risks of futures trading to Song, and (iii) Yao breached his duty of care as Song’s agent by failing to report account activity to Song and by failing to manage the investments properly. Song challenges only the portion of the decision finding Yao not liable for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

“Following a civil bench trial, we review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and its conclusions of law de novo; resolutions of mixed questions of fact and law are reviewed de novo to the extent that the alleged error is based on the misunderstanding of a legal standard, and for clear error to the extent that the alleged error is based on a factual determination.” Diebold Found., Inc. v. Comm’r, 736 F.3d 172, 182 (2d Cir.2013). Upon review of the record and the thorough Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law issued by the district court, we find no clear error in the district court’s factual findings, and agree with the district court’s legal conclusions.

We have considered all of Song’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 
      
       Judge Richard K. Eaton of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.