Fu Wu v. Chun Liu

At a glance

Parties

Fu Jing Wu (a.k.a. Leo Wu), appellant, v. Chun Liu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appellee

Case no.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 24-10397 (D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-21541-KMW)

Forum and rules

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Federal Arbitration Act, Chapter 2 (9 U.S.C. §§ 205, 206, 16(a)(1)(C)); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

Treaty

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention)

Court

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Chief Judge William Pryor (writing), Circuit Judges Grant and Luck

Underlying award(s)

None. The appeal concerns a district court order that denied a motion to compel arbitration and remanded the action to state court.

Sector

Real estate development; EB-5 immigrant investment

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction (19 March 2025). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars review of a single order that denied arbitration and remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Amount

No award. Investors paid USD 500,000 in capital plus USD 50,000 in fees each. The initial offering raised about USD 50 million, and Liu alleges a collective investment of about USD 72 million. Under a 2022 settlement with the receiver, Wu could receive up to USD 5 million.

The dispute

Fu Jing Wu and Wai Kin Lam raised money from Chinese investors seeking EB-5 visas for the planned Triton Center, a redevelopment of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service tower on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami. Investors such as Chun Liu bought membership units in Florida Immigration Building Funding, LLC under a purchase agreement that contained an arbitration clause. Wu and Lam allegedly diverted tens of millions of dollars to offshore entities and personal accounts. Liu brought a class action in Florida state court for fraud and for violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act and the Florida RICO Act. After first litigating in state court, Wu moved to compel arbitration and removed the action under 9 U.S.C. § 205. The district court, in a single order, held that Wu was not a signatory to the purchase agreement, denied the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Key holdings

1. The Court lacks jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars appellate review of a single order that both denies a motion to compel arbitration and remands an action removed under 9 U.S.C. § 205 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. pp. 2, 6, 14
2. Section 205 has no clear statutory command excepting removed cases from § 1447(d). It expressly applies the removal procedure "otherwise provided by law" and departs from only one of those procedures: the ground for removal need not appear on the face of the complaint. pp. 9–10
3. Section 16(a)(1)(C) does not override § 1447(d) for such orders. It still gives the Court jurisdiction over denials of motions to compel arbitration filed in district court as an original matter. Reading it otherwise would allow review of remand orders in nearly every case removed under § 205. pp. 10–11
4. The matter-of-substantive-law exception does not apply. The district court treated arbitrability as a "jurisdictional prerequisite", so its finding that Wu could not enforce the clause is a jurisdictional finding with no effect on the state action. p. 12
5. The Waco exception does not apply. Even if the denial of arbitration were treated as a separate order, it would not be conclusive, because the state court remains free to reject the district court's ruling that Wu cannot enforce the arbitration agreement. Following Kircher, the arbitration ruling cannot be disaggregated from the remand. pp. 12–13
6. Snapper v. Redan is distinguished. In Snapper, diversity jurisdiction was uncontested and the remand rested on a forum-selection clause. Here, removal jurisdiction itself turns on the enforceability of the arbitration clause. p. 14

Procedural history

1. 2013–2017Wu and Lam raise EB-5 investor funds through Florida Immigration Building Funding, LLC and allegedly divert them.
2. 2020Liu sues Lam and Building Funding, LLC in a Florida court. A receiver is later appointed and brings an ancillary action against Wu, Lam and their companies.
3. 2022Wu settles with the receiver and may receive up to USD 5 million from the sale of the properties he transfers. Liu then files a class action in a Florida court against Wu.
4. UndatedWu moves to compel arbitration in state court, then removes the action under 9 U.S.C. § 205. The district court denies arbitration and remands the case in a single order.
5. 19 March 2025The Eleventh Circuit dismisses Wu and Lam's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• William Pryor Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Chief Judge; wrote the opinion)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• remand order
• 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)
• 9 U.S.C. § 205
• removal
• motion to compel arbitration
• New York Convention
• Federal Arbitration Act
• section 16(a)(1)(C)
• non-signatory
• Waco exception
• matter-of-substantive-law exception
• Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust
• EB-5
• Triton Center
• waiver of arbitration
• appellate jurisdiction

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.