REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WILLIAM H. PAULEY, III, District Judge.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Weiwel Gao, against Gary Sidhu, seeking damages for breach of contract and fraud related to a contract to deliver securities as payment for services rendered brokering a transaction. Following entry of summary judgment on liability, the case was referred to me for an inquest, and a hearing was held on February 22, 2013. Both parties sent representatives to the inquest, but only the plaintiff presented an expert valuation on damages. The findings below are therefore based on the evidence presented at the hearing and on the information submitted by the plaintiff.
In October 2010, the plaintiff, through her U.S.-based representative, Zhi Yang, approached Gary Sidhu regarding a business proposal, specifically a reverse merger between a Chinese real estate company, Chongqing Zhongbao Investment (Group) Stock Co., Ltd. ("Zhongbao"), and a publicly-traded American company (the "Merger"). (Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), ¶¶ 1, 18). Mr. Sidhu was asked to identify an appropriate public company to be merged with Zhongbao. (Am. Compl., ¶ 18). The plaintiff was to make the introduction and facilitate the transaction, and would receive a fee in consideration for her efforts. (Am. Compl., ¶ 19).
Mr. Sidhu agreed to the proposal and the parties committed the agreement to writing in a "Fee Sharing Agreement" dated October 29, 2010. (Am. Compl., ¶ 20). The Fee Sharing Agreement contained provisions for the division of the remaining equity in the post-merger company. (Am. Compl., ¶ 24). According to the agreement, the plaintiff was to receive 34, 775 post-merger, pre-split shares. (Am. Compl., ¶ 30).
The Merger was consummated on February 11, 2011. (Am. Compl., ¶ 32). On February 14, 2011, Zhi Yang sent an e-mail to Mr. Sidhu directing him to send stock certificates to specified individuals, in the amounts indicated. (Am. Compl., ¶ 33). Despite numerous attempts to encourage Mr. Sidhu to make the transfer, he never conveyed shares to the plaintiff. (Am. Compl., ¶¶ 33-35). On April 20, 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action against Mr. Sidhu.
Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is based on plaintiff's federal securities law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78a. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Mr. Sidhu is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to the Fee Sharing Agreement. (Am. Compl., ¶ 14).
"Where an inquest is conducted following a default judgment, it is generally necessary for the Court to determine whether the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, are sufficient to establish the defendant's liability." PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06 Civ. 1104 , 2008 WL 2755835, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008). In this case, the Court has already found that the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim on which relief can be granted. (Order dated Dec. 21, 2011; Transcript of Default Hearing dated Aug. 9, 2012 at 10-11; Default Judgment dated Aug. 13, 2012).
The parties have agreed that New York law governs any claims arising out of the Fee Sharing Agreement. (Am. Compl., ¶¶ 25, 61(g)). Parties to international contracts are free to choose what jurisdiction's laws apply to their dealings, and when they do so, federal courts generally enforce the parties' selection. Ruby v. Corporation of Lloyd's ...