Liu v. Rajacic
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-00379
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liu v. Rajacic, Judge Schofield granted Liu a temporary restraining order requiring defendants to turn over and preserve property during the case.
Daming Liu and the defendants, who were ordered to turn over and preserve Liu’s property and provide information about any property already disposed of.
What happened
In Daming Liu v. Michelle Rajacic et al., Liu asked the court for a temporary restraining order concerning property held by the defendants.
The defendants had notice of two scheduled hearings but did not attend either one. Liu’s lawyer presented the request at the second hearing without the defendants present.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the temporary restraining order, requiring the defendants to immediately turn over Liu’s property and prohibiting them from transferring or disposing of it. The order also required information about any property already disposed of, did not require security, and would expire after 14 days unless extended.
The detailed version
- Liu v. Rajacic · No. 1:22-cv-00379
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
Daming Liu filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on January 19, 2022. The defendants were ordered to appear at hearings on January 24 and January 28 and had notice of both hearings, but they did not appear. Liu’s counsel was heard at the January 28 hearing without the defendants present.
Court’s ruling
The court granted Liu’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order required the defendants immediately to turn over property belonging to Liu that they possessed. It also prohibited the defendants, while the case was pending, from transferring or disposing of that property. If any property had already been disposed of, the defendants were required to provide information about when, where, by whom, and how it was disposed of, along with the name and contact information of any witness to the disposal.
The court stated that Liu had shown sufficient reason, including a strong likelihood of irreparable harm and a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The court did not require Liu to provide security. Liu was ordered to serve the order and supporting papers on the defendants or their counsel by January 31, 2022, and to file proof of service by that date. The temporary restraining order would expire 14 days after issuance unless the court extended it. The order stated that Liu would need to request a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to seek an extension.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.