Liyu Liu, Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

MOTION by Plaintiff Liyu Liu, Ltd. for extension of time Extend TRO

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Motion hearing held on 1/29/2025. Plaintiff's ex parte renewed motion for entry of a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint and expedited discovery [21], motion for leave to file under seal [24], motion to exceed page limit [25] are granted. Enter Order. An in-person status hearing is set for 2/12/2025 at 8:45 AM. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Liyu Liu, Ltd. for temporary restraining order Renewed Motion

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Motion hearing held on 1/7/2025. After reviewing Plaintiff's motion and informed by the presentation of the motion by Plaintiff's counsel, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [8]. The Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have made clear that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits the issuance of ex parte TROs, "the circumstances in which an ex parte order should be granted are extremely limited," Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314 (7th Cir. 1984), because "our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 94 S. Ct. 1113, 39 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1974)). While this Court and other courts in this district regularly issue such orders in cases involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement by unknown defendants, such equitable relief is only granted when the plaintiff demonstrates that (1) its case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). In the present case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants are purposefully directing their products to Illinois residents to satisfy personal jurisdiction. See NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 624 (7th Cir. 2022) (characterizing defendant's actions as purposeful after defendant fulfilled an Amazon order for the infringing product placed by plaintiff's investigator and plaintiff provided proof of delivery of the product). While Plaintiff's counsel stated in his presentation that a test product had been ordered to an address in Naperville, Illinois Plaintiff's filings do not show that an order was placed [12]. Absent such a showing, it is not clear why this litigation is properly brought in Illinois as opposed to any other jurisdiction such that the Court should grant extraordinary equitable relief. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file a motion for a TRO, Plaintiff must demonstrate why joinder of multiple defendants is appropriate. Here, Plaintiff avers that the 14 defendants are "working in active concert" to infringe upon Plaintiff's copyright [9]. But Plaintiff's filings indicate that only Defendant Stores 814 are currently active [11]. Further, each of these stores appear to sell a wide variety of products, ranging from electrical outlet covers to blankets to bean bag chairs [12]. Plaintiff is instructed to file a memorandum discussing the propriety of joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). Finally, as noted by the Court during Plaintiff's presentation and absent a showing by Plaintiff otherwise, if Plaintiff proceeds with refiling their TRO, Plaintiff shall be required to post a bond of fifty thousand U.S. dollars ($50,000) to cover damages resulting from any wrongful restraint of defendant(s). Plaintiff's motion to seal [13] and leave to file excess pages [14] are continued pending further action on this order. During the hearing, the Court gave this matter a status date of 1/21/2025, that date is now stricken. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Motion by Konrad Val Sherinian for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order 8, motion for leave to file excess pages 14, motion to seal document 13 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 1/7/2025 at 10:00 AM.

DECLARATION of Liyu Liu regarding motion for temporary restraining order 8

DECLARATION of Konrad Sherinian regarding motion for temporary restraining order 8

MEMORANDUM by Liyu Liu, Ltd. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 8

MOTION by Plaintiff Liyu Liu, Ltd. for temporary restraining order