Zhu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule…
Jiaren Zhu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule "A"
- Richard Seeborg
- 5:24-cv-03128
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jiaren Zhu v. Partnerships, Judge Seeborg denied Zhu’s renewed request for an emergency order because he proposed no workable way to notify the intended defendants.
Jiaren Zhu and the intended business defendants identified on Schedule “A”; the court denied Zhu’s renewed request for a temporary restraining order without reaching the alleged infringement claims.
What happened
In Jiaren Zhu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A,” Zhu asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order without first notifying the intended defendants. Zhu argued that locating and serving the businesses could take up to a year and that immediate relief was needed to prevent losses from allegedly infringing products.
The court explained that such an order generally binds only people who receive actual notice. Zhu had identified the real names of some businesses, but still had not shown how those businesses could be reliably located, identified, and served. The order could last only 14 days, subject to limited extensions, and notice would be required before a longer preliminary injunction could issue.
Judge Seeborg denied the renewed application because Zhu had not provided a workable method for notifying the defendants. The court did not decide whether the products infringed Zhu’s rights or whether Zhu would ultimately be entitled to an injunction.
The detailed version
- Zhu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule… · No. 5:24-cv-03128
- Richard Seeborg
- June 10, 2024
Background
Jiaren Zhu renewed an earlier request for a temporary restraining order. The earlier application had been denied without prejudice because Zhu had not shown that issuing the order without notice to the defendants was justified. In the renewed application, Zhu alleged that the true business names of some intended defendants had been identified, but that locating the businesses and serving them with the complaint and summons could still take up to a year. Zhu argued that preliminary relief was necessary to prevent irreparable losses during that period.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and explained that an ex parte temporary restraining order—an order issued without first notifying the opposing parties—is subject to strict limits. Such an order may bind only people who receive actual notice through personal service or another valid method.
The court concluded that identifying some businesses by their English names did not solve the notice problem. Zhu’s application stated that the businesses could not be located and that their actual Chinese names could not be reliably identified because thousands of Chinese businesses might correspond to the English translations. The court also noted that a temporary restraining order generally lasts only 14 days, subject to limited extensions, and that notice must be given before a preliminary injunction can issue. Without a workable method for providing notice, the court found no valid purpose for issuing the requested order.
The court discussed two Northern District of Illinois cases cited by Zhu but stated that the relevant applications and orders were sealed, so it was unclear what additional showing had been made. The court further noted that defendants in those cases appeared relatively soon and were heard at the preliminary-injunction stage.
Disposition
The court denied Zhu’s renewed application for a temporary restraining order. The opinion did not resolve the alleged infringement claims or decide whether Zhu was entitled to a preliminary injunction on the merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.