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
- 2
Judge Hellerstein denied Dreshow’s reconsideration motion in Ningbo Mizhihe v. Dreshow, leaving the bond-damages ruling unchanged.
Dreshow’s request to recover damages from Ningbo Mizhihe’s $25,000 bond remained denied, and the earlier finding that Dreshow consented to the voluntary dismissal remained in place.
What happened
In Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD v. Does 1–200, Dreshow sought to reconsider an earlier order denying its request for damages from a $25,000 bond. The bond had secured temporary orders in Ningbo Mizhihe’s copyright case.
Dreshow argued that the earlier voluntary dismissal occurred without its consent. The court said Dreshow identified no controlling law or new facts that it had overlooked and merely disagreed with the earlier decision.
The court denied Dreshow’s motion for reconsideration. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s earlier conclusion—that Dreshow consented to the dismissal, barring its bond-damages claim—therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- Ningob Mizhihe I&E Co., LTD v. Does 1-200 · No. 1:19-cv-06655
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 19, 2022
Background
Ningbo Mizhihe I&E Co. brought a copyright-infringement action in July 2019. The court granted temporary orders barring infringement of Ningbo Mizhihe’s copyrighted designs and freezing defendants’ Amazon accounts. Ningbo Mizhihe posted a $25,000 bond to secure those orders and the resulting injunctions.
After extensive litigation, Ningbo Mizhihe sought to voluntarily dismiss the case against 4Memorys, Deng Kai, and Dreshow. The defendants did not oppose that request, and the court granted the dismissal on June 6, 2021. Dreshow later sought damages from the bond. Judge Hellerstein denied that request on June 23, 2022, finding that the voluntary dismissal took place with Dreshow’s consent and that this barred Dreshow’s bond-damages claim.
Motion for Reconsideration
Dreshow moved for reconsideration of the June 23 order. The court explained that reconsideration is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness. Dreshow cited no controlling authority that the court had overlooked and identified no new facts. Instead, Dreshow disagreed with the court’s conclusions and attempted to present the case’s history differently.
Ruling
Judge Hellerstein denied the motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Dreshow had not met the strict standard for reconsideration. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 175. The opinion did not change the earlier ruling denying Dreshow’s request for bond damages.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.