Cavanaugh v. Individuals
Cavanaugh v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-00380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cavanaugh v. Individuals, Judge Rearden extended the temporary restraining order and moved the preliminary-injunction hearing.
The plaintiff, the unidentified defendants, and the third-party internet service providers and financial institutions subject to the temporary restraining order.
What happened
In Cavanaugh v. Individuals, the plaintiff brought a copyright-infringement action against defendants accused of selling products through online stores. The court had issued a temporary restraining order on March 31, 2025, and scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing for April 11.
The plaintiff asked for more time because third-party internet service providers and financial institutions had not yet provided information needed to identify the defendants and serve them. The plaintiff requested an extension of the restraining order and a later hearing. No defendant had appeared.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden extended the temporary restraining order through April 27, 2025, at 8:15 p.m., and moved the hearing to April 25, 2025, at noon. The order set April 23 for opposition papers and April 24 for any reply, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 24.
The detailed version
- Cavanaugh v. Individuals · No. 1:24-cv-00380
- Rearden
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
The plaintiff filed a copyright-infringement action against defendants alleged to have marketed and sold infringing products through e-commerce storefronts. The court issued a temporary restraining order on March 31, 2025. Among other relief, that order directed third-party internet service providers and financial institutions to restrain the defendants’ online selling accounts. The court initially scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing for April 11, 2025.
The plaintiff’s lawyer stated that service providers had not yet supplied information identifying the defendants or providing enough contact information to serve the complaint and give formal notice of the restraining order and hearing. The filing also stated that no defendant had appeared.
Requested Relief
The plaintiff asked to adjourn the preliminary-injunction hearing to April 28, require any opposition by April 24, and extend the temporary restraining order through the rescheduled hearing under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The filing argued that good cause supported the request because the third parties needed to provide information before service could be completed.
Court’s Order
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden extended the temporary restraining order through April 27, 2025, at 8:15 p.m. The court moved the preliminary-injunction hearing from April 11 to April 25, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. The order stated that opposition, if any, was due April 23 and that any reply was due April 24. The court also directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 24.
The opinion text does not state that the court entered a preliminary injunction or decide the underlying copyright-infringement claims. The court’s action was an interim scheduling and restraining-order ruling.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.