Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 12, 2024

Dongguan Guankun Trading Co., Ltd. v. Chen

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:24-cv-04573
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Preliminary InjunctionDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dongguan Guankun v. Estate of Billy Chen, Judge Ho declined to issue a temporary restraining order staying discovery.

Who this affects

Global Fashion Icon Inc. and non-party Shu Chung “Jerry” Lau were affected because the court did not issue their requested order staying discovery. The plaintiffs' discovery proceedings were not stayed by this order.

What happened

In Dongguan Guankun Trading Co., Ltd. v. The Estate of Billy Chen, Global Fashion Icon Inc. and non-party Shu Chung “Jerry” Lau sought an emergency order stopping discovery proceedings.

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction and found that the requesters cited no supporting authority for the required showing of likely irreparable harm.

Judge Dale E. Ho declined to issue the requested temporary restraining order, said the pending motions to quash would be decided later, and directed the clerk to close the motion filing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Dongguan Guankun Trading Co., Ltd. v. Chen · No. 1:24-cv-04573
Judge
Ho
Date
Sept. 12, 2024

Background

Global Fashion Icon Inc. and non-party Shu Chung “Jerry” Lau filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to stay discovery proceedings. The opinion refers to them collectively as “Defendants.”

Legal standard and analysis

The court stated that, in the Second Circuit, the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The most important requirement is a showing of irreparable harm—harm that cannot adequately be repaired later. The court found that Defendants cited no authority supporting their assertions of irreparable harm and that the court found none.

Ruling

The court did not issue the requested temporary restraining order. It stated that it would decide the pending motions to quash in due course and directed the clerk to close ECF No. 101, the filing associated with the emergency motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.