Zhu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule…

Background

Jiaren Zhu, appearing without a lawyer, sought an emergency temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against “the partnerships and unincorporated associations identified on Schedule ‘A.’” He alleged that unidentified people and businesses were operating online stores through Amazon and selling magnetic key holders that infringed his design patent, U.S. Patent No. D813317S. Zhu also requested a temporary restraint on defendants’ assets and expedited discovery.

The complaint listed 50 names on Schedule A, but the court found that the complaint treated those names as aliases for e-commerce stores rather than as the actual people or entities allegedly selling the products. Zhu therefore did not yet know the defendants’ identities or even how many defendants there were. The court stated that he could seek early discovery aimed at identifying them, provided that any such request specified the information sought and the people or entities who would receive subpoenas.

Reasons for Denial

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a temporary restraining order without notice may issue only when specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard. The court found that Zhu’s only assertion of immediate harm was that defendants would likely hide or move allegedly improper sales proceeds to offshore accounts if their assets were not frozen.

The court explained that a federal court generally lacks authority to freeze assets merely to ensure collection of a future money judgment when the plaintiff claims no lien or equitable interest in those assets. Even assuming Zhu might claim an equitable interest in specific proceeds from infringing sales, the court found his assertion too conclusory. He offered no facts showing that the proceeds were held within the court’s territorial jurisdiction or that notice of the request would cause the funds to be moved before the court could act.

The court also found that meaningful relief could not be imposed while the defendants’ identities and number were unknown. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an order binds only people who receive actual notice through personal service or another permitted method.

Disposition

The court denied Zhu’s application for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction without prejudice to renewal after he can identify the defendants, serve them with the summons and complaint, and give them notice of his request for preliminary relief. The court stated that a preliminary injunction cannot issue without notice and therefore would not set a hearing before defendants could be identified and notified. Chief Judge Richard Seeborg entered the order.