Casablanca Foods LLC v. Mina Sahar Saffron LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-05616
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Casablanca Foods v. Mina Sahar Saffron, Judge Woods denied without prejudice a preliminary-injunction motion because Plaintiff had not shown notice to Defendants.
Casablanca Foods LLC’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice; the ruling addressed notice and service requirements and did not resolve the trademark allegations against Defendants.
What happened
Casablanca Foods LLC sued Mina Sahar Saffron LLC and others, alleging that Defendants sold products infringing Plaintiff’s trademarks. The same day, Casablanca Foods asked the court for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary order sought before the case is resolved.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because Casablanca Foods had not filed proof that it served the complaint or motion on Defendants, and had not otherwise shown that Defendants were notified. Defendants had not appeared, so filing the motion did not itself provide them notice.
Judge Woods said Casablanca Foods may renew the request through an order scheduling a hearing after serving the required papers, or after filing proof of service and Defendants appear. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Casablanca Foods LLC v. Mina Sahar Saffron LLC · No. 1:25-cv-05616
- Gregory Woods
- July 9, 2025
Background Casablanca Foods LLC filed this action on July 9, 2025, alleging, among other things, that Mina Sahar Saffron LLC and other Defendants sold products infringing various trademarks owned by Casablanca Foods. Casablanca Foods filed a motion for a preliminary injunction later that day.
Reason for the ruling Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) permits a preliminary injunction only after notice to the opposing party. The court explained that the opposing party must have enough time to gather evidence and present arguments against the requested injunction. Courts may require the party seeking an injunction to file proof that it served both the complaint and the injunction motion on the opposing parties.
Casablanca Foods had not filed proof of service for either the complaint or its motion. It also had not presented other evidence that it notified Defendants about the motion. Because Defendants had not appeared, they would not have received notice merely because Casablanca Foods filed the motion.
Disposition The court denied Casablanca Foods’ motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. The court did not decide the alleged trademark infringement claims or the merits of whether an injunction should issue.
Casablanca Foods may renew the motion by submitting a proposed order to show cause that schedules a hearing, requires service of the order, complaint, and motion papers in a manner permitted by Rule 4, and requires prompt filing of proof of service. The proposed order should also include deadlines for Defendants’ opposition and Casablanca Foods’ reply, with the dates left blank for the court to complete. Alternatively, Casablanca Foods may renew the motion after filing proof of service and after Defendants have appeared. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 8.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.