Bhs Law LLP v. Jipyong LLC

Background

Bhs Law LLP filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order against Jipyong LLC and Jinhee Kim. Bhs sought to prevent them from engaging in what Bhs described as the unauthorized practice of law. Bhs argued that Jinhee Kim is licensed to practice law in California but that she was practicing through Jipyong, which the opinion describes as a Korean limited liability corporation.

Bhs asserted that filings in California courts resulting from the alleged unauthorized practice could be stricken or dismissed, creating a risk of wasted judicial resources. Bhs also claimed that the defendants’ conduct allowed them to compete for Bhs’s clients and prospective clients and caused economic losses, including in litigation involving Bhs’s former client Moreh, Inc.

The court reviewed the written submissions and canceled the hearing, deciding that the motion could be resolved without oral argument.

Temporary restraining order standard

A temporary restraining order is extraordinary relief and is not automatically available. To obtain one, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and that the public interest favors the order. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing all four factors.

Irreparable harm

The court held that Bhs did not meet its burden to show irreparable harm. The court characterized Bhs’s allegations about wasted judicial resources and lost clients as conclusory, vague, and unsupported by facts. The court also rejected Bhs’s suggestion that a lower standard requiring only a possibility of irreparable injury applied, explaining that the Ninth Circuit had abandoned that standard.

The court further concluded that Bhs had not explained why there was no adequate legal remedy for the alleged harms. Because Bhs described its injuries as economic, and economic injuries that can be remedied through money damages generally do not qualify as irreparable harm, those allegations were insufficient to support a temporary restraining order.

Because Bhs failed to make the required showing of irreparable harm, the court did not decide whether Bhs was likely to succeed on the merits or satisfy the other temporary-restraining-order factors.

Disposition

The court DENIED Bhs’s application for a temporary restraining order.

The court also STRUCK Bhs’s second amended complaint. The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), Bhs could amend its complaint once as a matter of course. Bhs had already exercised that right by filing a first amended complaint on May 22, 2025. Bhs then filed a second amended complaint on June 4 without seeking court permission or obtaining the defendants’ consent, as required by Rule 15(a)(2). The first amended complaint therefore remained the operative complaint.