TANG v. SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING 52 Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction filed by SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS. On 1/9/2026, the Court granted Mr. Tang's 41 motion for preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 47. In doing so, the Court ordered that the restraint on Defendant's assets previously granted on 12/12/2025, and extended by further Order on 12/18/2025, shall remain in place through the pendency of this litigation. Id. On 2/1/2026, Defendant filed a 52 Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which permits the Court to provide relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. First, the Court notes that an order for preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order. Doebler's Pennsylvania Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler Seeds, LLC, 88 F. App'x 520, 522 (3d Cir. 2004) ("A preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order[.]"). Unlike final orders, which are governed by Rule 60(b), a court may reconsider an interlocutory order "even if the movant cannot show an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court issued the underlying order, or 'the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.'" See Qazizadeh, 214 F. Supp. 3d at 295 (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). Rather, a district court may reconsider an interlocutory order whenever it is "consonant with justice" to do so. In re Anthanassious, 418 F. App'x 91, 95 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973)). However, this discretion must be exercised "in a responsible way, both procedurally and substantively" with "a presumption against reconsideration of interlocutory decisions." Id. at 9596. Although a court "has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own," it "should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances[.]" In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litig., 582 F.3d 432, 439 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988)). A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must establish good cause for doing so. Qazizadeh, 214 F. Supp. 3d at 295. Good cause will not exist when such a motion is "used as a means to reargue matters already argued[,]" is merely "an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant[,]" is nothing more than a "second bite at the apple," or raises "new arguments or evidence that could have been proffered prior to the issuance of the order in question[.]" Id. at 295-96 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Defendant argues that "[a]t the time the Court ruled, it did not have the benefit of Defendant's supplemental factual submissions[.]" However, following the show cause hearing, the Court expressly afforded the parties the opportunity to submit any additional evidence for the Courts consideration in advance of its ruling on preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 42. No submissions were filed by the Court's deadline. Defendant filed its 49 response in opposition to Plaintiff's 41 motion for preliminary injunction only after the Court issued the 47 Preliminary Injunction Order. In its present 52 Motion, Defendant seeks the Court's consideration of that untimely submission. Defendant also asserts a series of arguments opposing preliminary injunctive relief. The Court considered and dismissed those arguments in issuing its 47 Order, and does so again here. Neither Defendant's untimely submissions nor its representation that it has ceased sales of the allegedly infringing products warrant the Court's modification of its 47 Order. Accordingly, for all of the forgoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 52 Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 2/24/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Jie Tang's [41] Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restraint on Defendants' assets previously granted on 12/12/2025, and extended by further Order on 12/18/2025, shall remain in place up to the total amount of $142,750 through the pendency of this litigation as more fully set forth in the attached Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the $5,000.00 bond posted by Plaintiff shall remain with the Court until a final disposition of this case or until this PI Order is terminated. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 1/9/2026.

OPINION re Plaintiff Jie Tang's [41] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff's [41] Motion is GRANTED as more fully stated in the Opinion. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 1/9/2026.

ORDER re Order to Show Cause Hearing. On 1/6/2026, the Court held an Order to Show Cause Hearing regarding the need for a preliminary injunction. On 12/12/2025, the Court granted the Plaintiff's 7 motion for a temporary restraining order and entered the TRO. ECF No. 24. Defendants represented at the hearing that the TRO resulted in the restraint of approximately $170,000 of Defendants' assets and disrupted Defendants' business operations. Defendants also seek to conduct discovery relating to whether or not a preliminary injunction is warranted. The TRO is set to expire on 1/9/2026. Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer about 1) whether the parties stipulate to a modified asset-freeze amount that preserves the status quo while reducing the burden on Defendants until the parties conduct some discovery and the court can rule on the request for a preliminary injunction; and 2) whether Defendants agree to stop sales of the allegedly infringing products pending discovery and the Court's ruling on preliminary injunction, or permanently, and if so, what impact that has on this case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before 1/7/2026 at NOON, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth any agreed, modified asset-freeze amount and the additional information identified above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 1/7/2026 at NOON, the parties shall submit any additional evidence for the Courts review in advance of its ruling on preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 1/6/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

ORDER GRANTING 34 MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Opposition to Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction filed by SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS. In their 34 Motion, Defendants request leave to file Opposition papers for the Show Cause Hearing re Preliminary Injunction scheduled for 1/6/2026. Opposition papers were due 12/30/2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) permits a filing to be made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. Here, Defendants aver that they appeared and prepared a substantive opposition promptly after becoming aware of the action. In light of the expedited nature of the proceedings, the Court finds that there is good cause to grant the 34 Motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' 34 Motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 1/05/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

ORDER GRANTING 26 Motion to Continue the Show Cause Hearing and to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff JIE TANG. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Show Cause Hearing re Preliminary Injunction currently set for 12/23/2025 is RESCHEDULED for 1/6/2026 at 1:00 p.m., IN PERSON in Courtroom 9B before Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Opposition papers, if any, shall be filed electronically with the Court and served on Plaintiff's counsel by delivering copies thereof to the office of Aptum Law at 1660 S Amphlett Blvd Suite 315, San Mateo, CA 94402, on or before 12/30/2025. Plaintiff shall file any Reply papers on or before 1/2/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 12/18/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.