Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2025

Bui v. The Evergreen Advantage, LLC

Judge
Wise
Docket
5:25-cv-04284
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary InjunctionPro Se
In one sentence

In Bui v. Evergreen, Judge Wise denied without prejudice a temporary restraining order because the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants.

Who this affects

Lynne A. Bui and Total New Energy Systems Co., Ltd. were not granted the requested emergency order; The Evergreen Advantage, LLC and the other defendants were not enjoined from handling the equipment.

What happened

In Bui v. The Evergreen Advantage, LLC, Lynne A. Bui, representing herself, sued The Evergreen Advantage, LLC and others for herself and purportedly for Total New Energy Systems Co., Ltd. The court had allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee but ordered that the company obtain a lawyer and that Bui address defects in federal jurisdiction.

Bui asked the court to stop an online auction scheduled for June 10 through June 12, 2025, involving the company’s solar-panel manufacturing equipment. She sought an order preventing the defendants from selling, transferring, or disposing of equipment at a San Jose address.

Judge Wise ruled that the court could not issue the requested order because it currently lacked jurisdiction over the defendants. The court denied Bui’s temporary restraining-order application without prejudice and left its earlier order in effect.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bui v. The Evergreen Advantage, LLC · No. 5:25-cv-04284
Judge
Wise
Date
June 9, 2025

Background

Lynne A. Bui filed a complaint for herself and purportedly on behalf of Total New Energy Systems Co., Ltd. (TNES). She was representing herself. The court granted her request to proceed without paying the filing fee and reviewed the complaint under the federal statute governing cases filed without that fee.

In its earlier order, the court ruled that Bui could not represent TNES without a lawyer and required TNES to retain counsel by June 27, 2025. The court also found that Bui had not established a basis for federal jurisdiction: she had not asserted federal-question jurisdiction or alleged complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. The court gave her until June 27, 2025, to file an amended complaint addressing federal jurisdiction.

Request for emergency relief

On June 9, 2025, Bui filed an application for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to prevent specified conduct while a case proceeds. She said the defendants had scheduled an online auction from June 10 through June 12, 2025, involving TNES’s solar-panel manufacturing equipment. She asked the court to bar the defendants from selling, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the equipment located at 5729 Fontanoso Way, San Jose, California 95138.

Ruling

The court explained that it could not issue a temporary restraining order without jurisdiction over the parties. It stated that Bui had not yet corrected the jurisdictional defects in her complaint and that the court currently lacked jurisdiction over the defendants against whom she sought emergency relief. Judge Noël Wise therefore denied without prejudice Bui’s application for an ex parte temporary restraining order. The court stated that its prior order remained in full effect. The opinion also notes that Bui alleged the equipment was worth $10,000,000, an amount above the $75,000 diversity-jurisdiction threshold, but had not established complete diversity of citizenship.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.