Piechowicz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in…
Piechowicz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-03057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Piechowicz v. The Partnerships, Judge Broderick denied a temporary restraining order and required an amended complaint and sealed filing.
Libby Piechowicz and the partnerships and unincorporated associations identified in Schedule A; the order denied Piechowicz's requested temporary restraining order and imposed filing requirements on her.
What happened
In Piechowicz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, Libby Piechowicz asked the court for a temporary restraining order. The court held a hearing on June 17, 2024, and considered her written submissions and arguments.
The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order at that time. It ordered Piechowicz to file an amended complaint explaining how her jurisdictional allegations relate to New York.
The court also required Piechowicz to file an unredacted version of an exhibit under seal and allowed her to file an additional brief addressing questions raised at the hearing. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.
The detailed version
- Piechowicz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in… · No. 1:24-cv-03057
- Vernon Broderick
- June 17, 2024
Background
Libby Piechowicz, doing business as Lorna Laine, asked the court for a temporary restraining order, which is emergency relief intended to preserve the situation while a case proceeds. The court held a hearing on June 17, 2024, and considered Plaintiff's submissions and arguments.
Rulings
The court denied Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order at this time. The opinion does not state the reasons given on the record for that denial.
The court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by July 8, 2024. The amended complaint must explain how Plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations relate to New York. The court also directed Plaintiff to file under seal a fully unredacted version of Document 14's Exhibit B.
The court allowed Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief addressing questions raised at the hearing, including whether the request for a temporary restraining order complies with the requirements discussed in Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-Us. The order does not state a final ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.