Ningob Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD v. Does 1-200
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:19-cv-06655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Ningbo Mizhihe v. Does 1-200: Judge Hellerstein denied Dreshow’s motion for bond damages, finding Dreshow consented to dismissal and was not wrongfully enjoined.
Dreshow’s request for payment from the $25,000 injunction bond was denied, and the case was closed.
What happened
Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD v. Does 1-200 began as a copyright case in which the court issued orders stopping alleged infringement and freezing defendants’ Amazon accounts. Ningbo Mizhihe posted a $25,000 bond, and later voluntarily dismissed its claims against Dreshow and other defendants.
Dreshow asked to recover money from the bond, arguing that it had been wrongfully subjected to the court’s orders. The court found that Dreshow had consented to the dismissal by agreeing that dismissal was appropriate and by not opposing Ningbo Mizhihe’s later dismissal request.
Judge Hellerstein denied Dreshow’s motion for bond damages because Dreshow was not wrongfully enjoined. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.
The detailed version
- Ningob Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD v. Does 1-200 · No. 1:19-cv-06655
- Alvin Hellerstein
- June 23, 2022
Background
Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co. brought the case as a copyright-infringement action in July 2019. The court issued temporary restraining orders against multiple defendants, stopping alleged infringement and freezing defendants’ Amazon accounts, and later converted those orders into injunctions. Ningbo Mizhihe posted a $25,000 bond to secure the orders.
The parties later told the court they were close to settling. Ningbo Mizhihe sought voluntary dismissal of its claims against Dreshow, 4Memorys, and Deng Kai. The court granted that dismissal. Dreshow then asked to recover damages from the bond.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), a defendant seeking payment from an injunction bond must show that the defendant was wrongfully enjoined. A voluntary dismissal can sometimes count as a decision favoring the enjoined defendant for purposes of bond recovery. But recovery is barred when the defendant consented to the dismissal.
Court’s reasoning
Judge Hellerstein found that Dreshow consented to the dismissal. At a March 12, 2021 status conference, the parties jointly represented that they were near a settlement and agreed that dismissal would be appropriate. After the case was reopened for the limited purpose of seeking dismissal, Ningbo Mizhihe stated that the defendants had agreed that the action should be dismissed and would suffer no prejudice. Dreshow did not oppose or object to that statement or to the dismissal motion.
The court also considered the history of the litigation. Dreshow had unsuccessfully challenged the asset restraint three times, and its counterclaims had been dismissed. The court concluded that this was not a case in which the plaintiff quickly withdrew the lawsuit after obtaining a temporary order. Instead, Ningbo Mizhihe pursued the case for nearly two years before seeking dismissal without objection while settlement discussions were ongoing and litigation had become more difficult during the pandemic.
Because the court found that Dreshow was not wrongfully enjoined, it did not decide whether Dreshow’s claimed damages were proximately caused by the injunction.
Disposition
The motion for bond damages was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 165 and mark the case closed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.