Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 1, 2025

Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:25-cv-04183
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Lashify v. Qingdao Network, Judge Liman ordered briefing on whether defendants’ motion should be treated as seeking to modify a preliminary injunction.

Who this affects

Lashify, Inc. and the defendants named in the caption, including Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao Follow the Trend Network Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao Mars Culture Media Co., Ltd., UCOOLME, and Vivicute Limited.

What happened

In Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd., the defendants asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision about a bond. Lashify opposed the request and argued that the motion was procedurally improper.

The court noted that the requested relief included changing the terms of a preliminary injunction. It ordered the parties to explain why the motion should not be considered under the standards for modifying a preliminary injunction, rather than deciding the motion itself.

Judge Liman required the parties to submit explanations of no more than three single-spaced pages by August 6, 2025, and allowed responsive letters by August 7, 2025. The order did not decide whether the motion would be granted or denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lashify Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. Ltd. · No. 1:25-cv-04183
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Aug. 1, 2025

Background

On July 18, 2025, the defendants moved for reconsideration of the court’s bond decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The motion was supported by a legal memorandum and a declaration from Amber Liu. Lashify opposed the motion on its substance and also argued that the motion was procedurally improper.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that the relief requested by the defendants included modification of the terms and conditions of a preliminary injunction. The court cited Second Circuit authority stating that a preliminary injunction may be modified at any time and that a request for modification may be supported by an affidavit or declaration.

Order

The court ordered the parties to show cause—meaning to explain—by August 6, 2025, why the defendants’ motion at Docket No. 47 should not be considered under the standards for modifying a preliminary injunction. The submissions could be no more than three single-spaced pages, and responsive letters were due by August 7, 2025. The order did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion and did not resolve the underlying bond or injunction issues.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.