UGX Brands, LLC v. The City of Norfolk
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-05839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In UGX Brands v. The City of Norfolk, Judge Ho denied a stay but granted defendants an extension to respond to the preliminary-injunction motion.
The defendants received additional time to respond to the preliminary-injunction motion, while the plaintiffs received a June 3, 2025 reply deadline. The order did not resolve either the personal-jurisdiction motion or the preliminary-injunction motion.
What happened
UGX Brands, LLC v. The City of Norfolk concerns defendants’ request to pause proceedings on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction while the court considered defendants’ pending motion challenging personal jurisdiction. Defendants also said newly retained counsel needed additional time to prepare a response.
The court denied defendants’ request to stay the preliminary-injunction proceedings. It granted their alternative request for an extension and set May 27, 2025, as the deadline for defendants’ response and June 3, 2025, as the deadline for plaintiffs’ reply.
Judge Dale E. Ho entered the order on May 13, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 60. The order did not decide the personal-jurisdiction motion or the preliminary-injunction motion itself.
The detailed version
- UGX Brands, LLC v. The City of Norfolk · No. 1:24-cv-05839
- Ho
- May 13, 2025
Background
The court received defendants’ May 8, 2025 letter concerning plaintiffs’ pending motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants asked the court to stay their deadline to respond to that motion and any hearing on it until the court resolved defendants’ pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants argued that personal jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be resolved before the court considers injunctive or other substantive relief.
Alternative request
Alternatively, defendants requested a two-week extension, through May 27, 2025, to respond to the preliminary-injunction motion and asked that any hearing occur later. They explained that prior counsel had withdrawn and that newly retained counsel needed time to become familiar with the case and prepare the response. Defendants also argued that the extension would not prejudice plaintiffs.
Ruling
The court denied defendants’ request to stay plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It granted defendants’ request for an extension. Defendants were ordered to file their response by May 27, 2025, and plaintiffs were ordered to file their reply by June 3, 2025. Judge Dale E. Ho also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 60. The order did not rule on the pending personal-jurisdiction motion or the merits of the preliminary-injunction request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.